Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110259
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CABdc3Wrzo9s+x6i85ZWWK3UYc0LJBh+UEcZhZ07eX-iVpmt9vQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ec80c51.1c69fb81.bdcbc.bb92SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <607f00a8-bfe5-4562-37ce-b372ba73c57d@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 19:32:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5ec80c51.1c69fb81.bdcbc.bb92SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] PHP Namespace in core
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

On 22/05/2020 18:30, Mark Randall wrote:
> Should this vote fail, \PHP effectively changes from a reserved 
> namespace, to a dead namespace.


I don't see how you get from the text of this RFC to that conclusion.

There are a number of reasons why people who vote against this RFC might 
vote for an alternative, such as:

* They would prefer *more* classes to be in \PHP
* They would prefer fewer classes, but not none
* They would prefer a similar number of classes, but a different definition
* They would prefer a guideline with "should" or "may" rather than "must"
* They like the definition, but would prefer a plan to rename existing 
classes that meet it, for consistency (I don't have a vote, but I might 
well vote No on this basis)
* They would prefer a concrete proposal on how to structure the 
namespace, which this RFC explicitly is not
* They might even prefer your RFC, which is still marked "Under 
Discussion": https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_namespace_policy


It is possible that "officially declare that we won't use the \PHP 
namespace" would get a majority, but that's not what this vote asks.


Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins (né Collins)
[IMSoP]