Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107432
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_754FAE64-1921-43F5-A525-E1EB1240ED89"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:12:12 -0400
References: <5d976928.1c69fb81.db3a8.78daSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAF+90c9uXdqJsTizLCca-AswenZDv9-6yw=ranATp3XoutHyxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR06MB285747B847DE2D7320758C05DE9A0@DM5PR06MB2857.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <e69fb3de-df5f-f77e-ad4e-61ea30185c5c@lsces.uk>
 <CAG9XoMR9DhKDwS1moH_9pjDNyZQ70ER5_stNs_GxQFucZ+ar7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <413d377a-4ce1-a521-0cb4-5bb37e84c257@gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <413d377a-4ce1-a521-0cb4-5bb37e84c257@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6DFA91F7-0005-453E-A314-A5DFE1A4D3D3@newclarity.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

--Apple-Mail=_754FAE64-1921-43F5-A525-E1EB1240ED89
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

My, my this is a heated topic.

I am commenting in part because I do not have a dog in this hunt.  I am =
okay leaving it, I am okay if it is deprecated.  There are other things =
for PHP that I care far more about than this RFC.  So...

I am wondering if everyone participating in this discussion would be =
willing to ask themselves "Is there any middle ground where I can =
respond in a way that is win-win for everyone involved?" rather than =
retreating to each other's respective corners and fighting as if to the =
death? =20

If I did not know better I would think this group was filled with =
members of the US Congress because of the unwillingness to compromise =
and seek common ground.

For example, would those who oppose this RFC change to support it if =
this was changed from:=20

> Although the deprecation notice itself will carry no backwards

> compatibility changes, this RFC is written with the intent that the

> backtick operator would eventually be removed in a later version


To this?:

The deprecation notice will carry no backwards compatibility changes.
In addition this RFC is explicitly not recommending removal of the=20
backtick operator in a later version. To remove it =E2=80=94 if ever =
desired =E2=80=94
will require an additional RFC to be passed.


Maybe the above resolves the objections against this RFC?  Or maybe the =
above makes it useless in the minds of those who want to get rid of =
backtick? But this specific FRC does not matter to me=20

The point however, is can we not work to some form of happy medium =
rather than everyone fighting a zero sum game?

-Mike
#jmtcw=

--Apple-Mail=_754FAE64-1921-43F5-A525-E1EB1240ED89--