Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109537
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPyj-LB_RwOd7u02HipKb=iWuF-kMSr0=k=Ecd7eZFtxhz-GxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuT_xdUvquseU9PXGuGxt6gY9F+kUaeVnK0BaS8zU+FWNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPyj-LDtDbWXiJCNrBuUTkPmermN99FaHbsYOiNLWxNtHar6rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuSYikN=oHcp1isYCeNPXbrK3bBRWz8fDWk=R+q9mHubTg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPyj-LDRC7_HXnnKy5=+c+oJj8NCXwqTDuF+dEZ=cO=dp=CLJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPyj-LDRC7_HXnnKy5=+c+oJj8NCXwqTDuF+dEZ=cO=dp=CLJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 13:25:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuQ+zxcf0=_+9kFMya0mEZcrCnn+Di2vSrMxCZw8Qc315w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ilija Tovilo <tovilo.ilija@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] throw expression
From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)

On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 13:05, Ilija Tovilo <tovilo.ilija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "What are the rules here, can"

"... the rules are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."

As a project we should clarify exactly what is meant to happen when
issues are found in an RFC that affect how people are going to vote.

But for this case; there is plenty of time until the deadline for RFCs
that target PHP 8.

As it's a small but non-trivial change, I'd recommend closing the
vote, updating the RFC to either have the correct behaviour around
precedence, or if it's not possible to do that, disallow code that has
the ambiguous/surprising behaviour. Having what people are voting on
change, when votes are currently being cast is a thing that leads to
drama.

Once that issue is fixed, then wait two weeks and put the RFC to a
vote and it should sail through imo.

> yours was literally the only criticism I received.

In an attempt to set expectations; if a point is already being
addressed as part of the discussion, it's unlikely that other people
are going to "+1" that*. Extra email messages take up people's time
and don't add much value. Currently it's the responsibility of the RFC
author to make sure all points are addressed. Arguably that's
something that could be split off to be a role done by someone else.

cheers
Dan
Ack

* moving to a discussion platform that did allow indicating agreement
with an argument in a way that didn't take up people's time would be
nice...