Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107470 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 66032 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2019 19:10:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp3.php.net) (208.43.231.12) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2019 19:10:49 -0000 Received: from php-smtp3.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BC12D1FA2 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:53:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp3.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Virus: No Received: from mail-ot1-x341.google.com (mail-ot1-x341.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::341]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x341.google.com with SMTP id e11so5490199otl.5 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:53:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9SvK8u7Ksa4Xm2SjhbOYBk24hn+TgA0tdph/DGZabzM=; b=kxQMhhhEFkPSVdEwmUBQWUsJmdUoIX57SEBMRgpu4MiLj4WPgrSMIv/qra+gee4K31 33VHzoeGKWlUdx6AXrJLbgQe7TCDdGcWxVPQkYowvZ4bfb7/vhgJaIO0BmovCQVuYxEG AmEf1/SOXQH9BfiMJWLeLRPmIwd/GygJRrmCaRGCMA4K50Q9VqUhkLwS3sdpVBqnVccO 35MH2iXfUBIBykxAo4nNh5WIyAe1uKZBZR+y925JaVINrNEnm/RsqsKbdM0jb/V+E5zm HSxbFT1T2qJn962mq2OHEJ0xbM1lOHw0vhUwtTVzZo9piV57tBKSZ+GToaFhqynO2K3X 0aiA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9SvK8u7Ksa4Xm2SjhbOYBk24hn+TgA0tdph/DGZabzM=; b=apUKDnYp09vYCmAYlwC1zlRdR2e4s14AXtUyhO61O2JdeL+itaIjWEwQ26LtHdInyJ ow9/TFA91vyO+teFspzS7L7kP16unULadORzVhIj/OPKqk/yF1UqAn46FV8N9kRFqU1Y 8OUm4ptloEV+O9qs/Pbb35mOGRkgCNV2/TD8zUR/CfS2sBz6G+s+Pq04RPz1DeXACVp6 74977HarFxZSAjyz8Cuxg0IIv7JDdTuTIY9cvHO+uVpI4iNhaYi06iN0xeykiybbLOXZ GWRVDuf97BlWCScuc97RjBGeuCdKATv5qmV5ZViJXgHGkXAeO4CHpAOzAQyqSV3i/TnM FG+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW0SjgoCAjrn8WE4g4KhZYBZKKF9KMjETcrzF5kRhD2fPasTb2W O9smaSLUM+DH6lqWOrg2RqZ6/9hXGiD0KpDx7v0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzed2tHsZYGtnyrU3C4mVX+nzi4LEMtWbAZXo26n75nzVxAsKaYBbrDUnu49TkzaDd9pCpK0KriQv/a4aQQ8v4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:10cc:: with SMTP id z12mr8378133oto.1.1570726424294; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:53:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5d976928.1c69fb81.db3a8.78daSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <97f3dd0b-da70-e2d3-2e66-d77dea579d80@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <97f3dd0b-da70-e2d3-2e66-d77dea579d80@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 17:53:31 +0100 Message-ID: To: Stanislav Malyshev Cc: Nikita Popov , Mark Randall , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008f4a890594913e63" X-Envelope-From: Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2) From: oludonsexy@gmail.com (Olumide Samson) --0000000000008f4a890594913e63 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 4:35 AM Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > it into some kind of proxy war. Yes, "it breaks backwards compatibility > for > > questionable benefit" is an argument against this proposal, it is even a > > *very good* argument against it, but it's also no mandate to shut down > the > > discussion entirely. > > Well, anyone is free to continue the discussion forever and ever > (there's no real way of "shutting down" it), but if there a *very good* > argument against it, then the point of continuing would be.... ? > > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalyshev@gmail.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.ph > For as long as I can recall, there would always be an argument against and for a debate. An argument against doesn't stop the RFC from going on, coz if it does there won't be anything to vote on since the RFC started to become a thing. Even unanimous votes still have argument against it that didn't get to show up in the vote, either because those arguing against it isn't voting or something changed along the way. Argument is a good way to life. > --0000000000008f4a890594913e63--