Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107433
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <6DFA91F7-0005-453E-A314-A5DFE1A4D3D3@newclarity.net>
In-Reply-To: <6DFA91F7-0005-453E-A314-A5DFE1A4D3D3@newclarity.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 13:22:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHN63oN3cgGaaWhYhLUVBAgRsi7d-eLODfhLGBOJetFh98zWQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003d371205946bef78"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)
From: mo.mu.wss@gmail.com ("M. W. Moe")

--0000000000003d371205946bef78
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

@Mike Schinkel,

a middle ground about/with silliness? there is none, for people in their
right mind; should people really find/force
themselves into conciliation about non-sense? I don't think so and mostly;
I have no say about deprecating that;
but is that a priority? does it harm anyone? someone have died from
backtick infection, it must be according to some?
and so on. Don't see where there is a heated topic; solely a reminder about
reality and facts.

Regards.

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:12 PM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote:

> 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 f=
or
> 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 t=
o
> each other's respective corners and fighting as if to the death?
>
> 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:
>
> > 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
> backtick operator in a later version. To remove it =E2=80=94 if ever desi=
red =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
>
> The point however, is can we not work to some form of happy medium rather
> than everyone fighting a zero sum game?
>
> -Mike
> #jmtcw

--0000000000003d371205946bef78--