Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107150
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
In-Reply-To: <c-17aa9-k0m4oken-zl1zaq=1856q0e@2.gethop.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 04:31:09 -0400
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <340E0F88-72CF-40AA-B8B0-E68AC3A72942@newclarity.net>
References: <572E7B74-9D56-483F-94A6-F2955C63AA56@gmail.com>
 <CAEPJdukdKUTWyMcJSqJCKq2UOSVz6_aNdC7_C5_Bysr0JQfpHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <f4a5c687-b855-4af7-a7bf-0c5db9ecef5d@Mikes-iPad-Pro>
 <c-17aa9-k0m4oken-zl1zaq=1856q0e@2.gethop.com>
To: Arnold Daniels <arnold.adaniels.nl@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] The RFC discussion process?
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Arnold Daniels =
<arnold.adaniels.nl@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> [Arnold Daniels - Chat @ =
Spike](https://www.spikenow.com/?ref=3Dspike-organic-signature&_ts=3D5wb22=
)	[5wb22]
>=20
> On September 16, 2019 at 7:40 GMT, Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> =
wrote:
>=20
>>>=20
>>> 1. Alternatives to the RFC?
>>> 2. Enhancements to the RFC?
>>> 3. Modifications to the RFC?
>>> 4. Other features that are a pre-requisite for the RFC's feature?
>>> 5. Other features that would add value to the RFC's feature?
>>>=20
>>>=20
>> Everything you list is appropriate to talk about as feedback to an =
RFC.
>=20
> IMHO what you see with the object initializer discussion, has gone =
beyond "I think named arguments is a good alternative, because ...". A =
big part of the thread is about how to best implement named arguments =
and other (possibly alternative) features. This overshadows the topic of =
the original RFC.
>=20
> Additionally, even if the general consensus is that named arguments =
are indeed a better alternative, it doesn't help to advance PHP forward, =
since no progress is being made to implement that feature.
>=20
> As such, it would be preferable if the RFC about named arguments =
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/simplified_named_params) was revived and =
discussed out of context of the object initializer RFC.

To clarify again, I had these questions *before* the Object Initializer =
RFC was proposed.

Please do not assume I asked these questions because of any form of =
"sour grapes" about the Object Initializer RFC discussions. Yes I want =
object initializers but my questions were not a passive-agreesive way to =
try and get that to pass.  They are honest questions unrelated to the =
Object Initializer RFC that I have wondered about based upon my reading =
of all the discussion on the recent contentious RFCs.

I created a new thread so that my questions could be discussed in the =
general context and not in the context of Object Initializer RFC. The =
only reason I referenced the Object Initializer RFC because it was a =
recent example and thus a convenient one to reference. I now wish I had =
not included any examples in my list of questions because it has caused =
the answers to be focused on that RFC and not RFCs in general.

-Mike