Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107138
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:00:37 +0100
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <472D3E22-18D9-4C25-8961-C1DDEF482981@newclarity.net>
References: <472D3E22-18D9-4C25-8961-C1DDEF482981@newclarity.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
CC: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <83969BA7-706A-4A33-9FA9-3806FA225B04@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Features related to Object Initializers
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

On 16 September 2019 04:13:24 BST, Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity=2Enet> wr=
ote:
>
>> On Sep 14, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Rowan Tommins <rowan=2Ecollins@gmail=2Ecom=
>
>wrote:
>> I think that's only true because you've actually proposed a number of
>related but different features=2E
>
>
>See my other email to the list asking about what is in-bounds and what
>it out-of-bounds regarding RFC discussion=2E
>
>I seemed logical to me to discuss how to improve an RFC, but maybe what
>you are saying is that we are only suppose to discuss RFC as it exists
>today in order to give a black and white, up or down vote on the entire
>RFC?  That seems counter-productive, but if that is the case and others
>concur then so be it=2E


I'll try to reply in detail later, but to clarify, I was not saying that y=
our message was off topic=2E What I was saying was that what you described =
as one feature with lots of applications seems to me like lots of features =
with overlapping syntax=2E

There's nothing wrong with that, but it means that we don't get some of th=
e stated benefits unless/until all the features are implemented, and I thin=
k it's useful to break down what each feature gives on its own=2E

Regards,

--=20
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]