Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106981
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <076701d56978$86020910$92061b30$@php.net> <CADyq6sK4HektgfDpCCFR3=bumyPaf9vn=-WdvaboHybBQKd53g@mail.gmail.com>
 <078e01d5697c$5512bc10$ff383430$@php.net> <CAKws9z1EBSqCFy2wD3cEV49KDSJOd6tT04PrCkxG8+3Hb6WpTA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKws9z1EBSqCFy2wD3cEV49KDSJOd6tT04PrCkxG8+3Hb6WpTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 12:56:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKw1EU3Qp6W7b19r4kMKPD1HntH+7NQSxSiDNcLXqPERMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Arciszewski <scott@paragonie.com>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008bf93505925e040a"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--0000000000008bf93505925e040a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:51 PM Scott Arciszewski <scott@paragonie.com>
wrote:

> I'd like to weigh in as a voice of reason here.
>
> > There are no processes to make fundamental non-opt-in language changes
> in PHP.
>
> This part might be reasonable.
>
> > There won't be such processes either. These behaviors are here to stay.
> We can tweak them, we can augment them - we do not get to deprecate or
> radically change them.
>
> This part is totally unreasonable.
>
> Let me explain:
>
> "We lack a process" opens a door. If the RFC process is inadequate to
> address necessary deprecations and removals, then what process *would*
> be adequate and appropriate?
>
> THIS IS A GOOD CONVERSATION TO HAVE! Especially if you believe
> contrary to Zeev about whether the RFC process is adequate and
> appropriate.
>
> "There won't be such processes either" shuts the just-opened door in
> the rudest manner possible. This doesn't lead to a productive
> conversation, this just ends it with Zeev's opinion being final.
>
> My thoughts:
>
> I think we should give Zeev precisely half of what he wants here:
> Let's discuss whether a separate process should be created for
> deprecations/removals... and if so, what it would look like. And then
> if we come up with something new, in true Internals fashion, create an
> RFC and vote on our new addition to the RFC process. (Even Zeev has to
> acknowledge that additions are fine, with 2/3 majority.)
>
>
Don't use the term "deprecations and removals" - it's not the right term
here. There are many deprecations and removals that don't fundamentally
change the language. For example, deprecating create_function() after
closure support was added didn't fundamentally change the language.


> But we shouldn't accept his door-shutting terms just because he says so.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Scott Arciszewski
> Chief Development Officer
> Paragon Initiative Enterprises <https://paragonie.com>
>
> Scott Arciszewski
> Chief Development Officer
> Paragon Initiative Enterprises
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:11 AM Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 5:59 PM
> > > To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>
> > > Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
> > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors
> > >
> > > If you want to have an authoritative say on what the RFC process is
> for or not,
> > > please start a new RFC about it: your mail is just straight out
> inappropriate.
> >
> > No Marco.  The RFC process wasn't meant to deal with who has
> authoritative say any more than it was meant to deal with changing
> fundamental behaviors in PHP.  The fact we got used to putting everything
> to a vote doesn't mean that it can work for anything and everything.
> >
> > While I realize my email is unpleasant for many to read, it's in the
> context of an RFC that attempts to do something that is strictly
> inappropriate and out of the question.  Stating the fact, that the RFC
> process was never meant to allow this to be done, is a statement of fact.
> >
> > I *hate* to be in the position to be the one who has to point it out and
> stick to it.  I know how much fire that's going to draw and I know I'd hate
> every second of it.  But it is what it is.
> >
> > There are no processes to make fundamental non-opt-in language changes
> in PHP.  There won't be such processes either.  These behaviors are here to
> stay.  We can tweak them, we can augment them - we do not get to deprecate
> or radically change them.
> >
> > We can (and I believe should) augment them with alternative, stricter
> opt-in behaviors.  But those who dream of simply changing PHP into a
> stricter language step by step should understand that this is simply not
> going to be happen.  Not now, not ever.
> >
> > Zeev
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

-- 
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--0000000000008bf93505925e040a--