Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107451
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
	s=turbo-smtp; d=php.net;
	h=Received:Received:X-TurboSMTP-Tracking:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Google-Smtp-Source:X-Received:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:X-Gmail-Original-Message-Id:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type;
	b=FdD82De3NmYrRzwS3jIx/m9MIUW30CzCCU8PeFRdZ9UNZPp1H+sKnxS9e/9v8R
	2TTxFvwcuBi81s6GXUUuDHxNZtn1lHubAuD73ycWD8T9Cs7bUdfl7UGx0WMFXzDe
	2cHyXvnkUrzV7yTGT4C6ziEnmenymc3AxkBhbRNkt8LzU=;
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> <CAHN63oN3cgGaaWhYhLUVBAgRsi7d-eLODfhLGBOJetFh98zWQg@mail.gmail.com> <D2050867-9A1B-45D1-A51E-F7AFEE47DD69@newclarity.net> <CAJHtznwX-V8KKSyqir-BQBeaovP3+a6-EoafOFxpgGwAqth3sg@mail.gmail.com> <82012CD7-088D-4010-922E-AD54186AE37A@newclarity.net>
In-Reply-To: <82012CD7-088D-4010-922E-AD54186AE37A@newclarity.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:50:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJHtznweQuiXZff=O=d1=JNZCLU-+dJ=eZ49Ev0bc9zp1aC1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ed3715059475fb2c"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)
From: zeev@php.net (Zeev Suraski)

--000000000000ed3715059475fb2c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 0:38 Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote:

> ...it seems you have identified at least one way to seek compromise.  Why
> not move forward with this, in general?
>
>
I did - quite a while ago - and I see no reason not to, except that the
pro-strict/pro-let=E2=80=99s-break-things camp either ignores that proposal
entirely, or calls it a fork (it=E2=80=99s a fork in precisely the same way=
 that
PHP is a spoon).

Note that I don=E2=80=99t really view it as a compromise, which is why I wr=
ote my
reply to you the way that I did.  Instead, I see it as a complete win/win
for both camps.  It=E2=80=99s radically different from thoroughly entertain=
ing each
and every proposal with the inevitable contentious discussion that would
ensue - in the context of changing PHP and both forcing people to change
how they work as well as break existing code - and come up with some
technical middle ground between =E2=80=9Cwe shouldn=E2=80=99t touch it=E2=
=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cwe must kill
it=E2=80=9D.



> Said another way, why not discuss and debate BC breakage in abstract =E2=
=80=94 and
> any other contention topics =E2=80=94 and then establish a set of princip=
les that
> the community can agree to use?
>
>
I don=E2=80=99t know.  The last time I tried to do it, someone pulled an ov=
ernight
pseudo-RFC to stop the discussion, radically mischaracterizing the
proposal, abusing a vote to shutdown discussion, and creating the
fundamentally wrong impression that this is about the technical feasibility
of achieving this - and not about whether we want to go down that route or
not.  I=E2=80=99m all for discussing it (the principle, not necessarily in =
the P++
form).

I would create an RFC like that but AFAIK I have not developed enough clout
> here thus far so it would have to be from someone already well respected.
>
>
As I wrote a couple of weeks back, before we agree on the principle - that
these contentious, breaking-for-no-new-reason proposals can=E2=80=99t be fo=
rced on
everyone but we need to make it opt-in, I don=E2=80=99t think formalizing i=
t into
an RFC would help.  I could be wrong, but I think we=E2=80=99re currently l=
acking
in good will on the other camp, which appears to feel a lot more
comfortable to just go on producing contentious proposals day in and day
out, and live with whatever sticks.

P.S. You argument against compromises ironically  soundsvery similar to the
> argument that leaving certain syntax in PHP encourages people to use it,
> and thus write "bad" code.  Do you not see the similarities?
>

In a nutshell, no, not really.  Feel free to try to convince me otherwise
off list - I=E2=80=99ll report back if convinced :)

Zeev

>

--000000000000ed3715059475fb2c--