Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110569 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 68609 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2020 10:19:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 16 Jun 2020 10:19:57 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF3B180211 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:05:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lj1-f176.google.com (mail-lj1-f176.google.com [209.85.208.176]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f176.google.com with SMTP id i27so22548488ljb.12 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:05:21 -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=hbGNj2eaLp+yCunAxO+5iXyh443Fk1nYdMccdOhIYME=; b=RHDbdivB5qJu5ow5r3HAVC9z0ZNOGCbmKqi1+XeQz2o+MzFFO1SLT5Q9ePiYLsFq2n SPDSio9CrsJeo41NoDyld+JU4VU+yo776oU3b4Tf6B2i4wnB97EQwUYtV5tCfLFI4YoM 498Bi0kyhH+wxbmKPxluMiR8th+JkVAAlF4Ahe+JHA5ko1NLDdghvlD2CtyY71+k8fgq u0E7LumIt0YuO5EFTmqgU+RCfg6XQalAT+Li2pLj6nFmUSr6MP8ZzmuyhMlzTQJq/gtY SCR7v6Ahzg8ssmA2AujOclbDjpAGHVJFu45bRpgnDL1aa9z8ks4KSGQX8/y814AedzeA gtSA== 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=hbGNj2eaLp+yCunAxO+5iXyh443Fk1nYdMccdOhIYME=; b=Fl0uVuv6ooGRvJwf0w0homazXdHsHUIQ822dBKC1AKWstNZU0s0ItD2hQV3FD8bEZn eOic4gsV2wYWtBLqdDefMGr7Eidc51UuK3izaMKqvjW0HO+gHDFYk5tYbGro65DMi8nh bsEKxgirejMzhznaxFY9gJD+WfbcM7+K5TTd5saYXuWjOZxOzP6bdyc/HOYFUmArY/Hp fLX6oKs5aC+B0ZyyKnEy7shgTLBJocRnKlLSH806IOvveEnF4NGB/Jsw9BjysYgCuMm8 UDFEwyavWvCJV5Pt+6PKygfBE89+ont+mQb4l2m1XSgscqvaOzc/3DB2onHyPl/+zQ8h JDFw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533bVUfeMHhvpgLtHnpBi/5UAuO+QnGSjpf+uV9rNBDEdLYhz9Pk yW7io0SiFLyfXn4Ji7UEXzbIeuf0HwzIy/35+2gmzv7U X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwjHSGU2QEOB4X9z+JvVMOmGMiqwVSa3CH71KxAjYWdjvl94qe7GuKTSWawg2ZuAqx8XrMCUvsKRqPcpoPgjJ8= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b550:: with SMTP id a16mr966858ljn.345.1592298319385; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:05:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:05:03 +0200 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Pedro_Magalh=C3=A3es?= Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b43ec105a82fd70e" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Remove inappropriate inheritance signature checks on private methods From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --000000000000b43ec105a82fd70e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:43 PM Pedro Magalh=C3=A3es wro= te: > Hi internals, > > I have opened the vote on the "Remove inappropriate inheritance signature > checks on private methods" RFC. Which can be found here: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/inheritance_private_methods > > The voting period will end on 2020-06-29 22:00 UTC. > > Thanks to those who participated in the discussion and provided feedback. > Voting no on this one, for the reason I previously mentioned on the PR: While the abstract and static parts of the RFC make sense, the final part does not (to me). Changing the behavior of private final just removes existing functionality, without any clear benefit that I can see. What is the problem that change tries to solve? The original RFC could at least make a consistency argument, but the final form, which converts an existing special case into an even more convoluted special case, can not. Why is __construct() exempted, but __clone() for example isn't, even though similar considerations apply to it? Regards, Nikita --000000000000b43ec105a82fd70e--