Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106364
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
	s=turbo-smtp; d=php.net;
	h=Received:Received:X-TurboSMTP-Tracking:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Google-Smtp-Source:X-Received:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:X-Gmail-Original-Message-Id:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type;
	b=QQl+AfDHc/SIgfc5/OpLFyABO1+d7rr2OOr4zu1+fAR6Cnw2K2tg34UhF6neu5
	bgTzYCEeJQQ+a8P8wwLMaeuxfI2WuiI/ZQ2d1MJ8tRh9Yc4trcAnaya7oDT2ncNK
	9fUW1tBkF8Q+ivFDPA3ijKz1fJuBO14ldBmCBw4/0Bib4=;
MIME-Version: 1.0
1PR0902MB2154.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com> <CAJHtznx3iPKwfW1fD_Gz7d9aDuH-T2Eenme28rz=aS3AWROi3A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+kxMuSRfG1uwgWSDu5rkiuGu71nZJjwwiFHiEeJXEzD6MugNA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuSRfG1uwgWSDu5rkiuGu71nZJjwwiFHiEeJXEzD6MugNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 11:50:46 +0300
X-Gmail-Original-Message-Id: <CAJHtznw2JUkhJSLKvHAA3RyzASKPus-1yAgOa6MHXN6ZOO=tHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJHtznw2JUkhJSLKvHAA3RyzASKPus-1yAgOa6MHXN6ZOO=tHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com>
Cc: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000468788058ef639bf"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax
From: zeev@php.net (Zeev Suraski)

--000000000000468788058ef639bf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I believe I addressed most of what you wrote in my reply to Nikita, except
for this:

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:45 PM Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 20:09, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote:

> If they do - it's absolutely their responsibility
> > to defend their proposal
>
> Zeev, this isn't a rule that has been agreed.
>

Dan,

We also didn't agree anywhere that the discussions have to be in English,
or that people aren't supposed to use curse words.
The RFC RFC did not attempt to be a comprehensive detailed rulebook for
every little detail or every scenario that may or may not happen.  It took
into account that what we already had on internals would continue to
happen.  That said - I have to admit that even if I had to do a rewrite -
until recently - I would have never imagined we need to spell out that
on-point feedback should be responded to, and that RFC authors cannot
effectively 'boycott' people whose on-point feedback they don't like.  Not
everything has to be spelled out.


> But making vague threats to try to influence other contributors is
> completely inappropriate behaviour.


This was not a threat of any kind, and framing it as such is inappropriate
by itself.  I wasn't "threatening" to have anyone kicked or otherwise
penalized.  It was a reminder of one of the ground rules - respectful
discussion and focusing on the ideas and not the people they came from -
and making it clear I have no intention to yield on it.  I said that if for
some reason what has been and should continue to be obvious - just as much
as the discussions here have to be respectful (and in English) - is no
longer obvious - we'll make it clear.  That's all.

Zeev



>
>

--000000000000468788058ef639bf--