Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110832 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11935 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2020 11:37:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 2020 11:37:24 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A691804DC for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 03:27:04 -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-f174.google.com (mail-lj1-f174.google.com [209.85.208.174]) (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 ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 03:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f174.google.com with SMTP id t25so31739554lji.12 for ; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 03:27:03 -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=f7nMPtpzbAmku7K7BCw/lToQ51bKNfFJdwAQEv1RzCI=; b=RlRH+hQgwXsXA+uyBpf1IbvFpAn8/uF4k5ZrJr03lYYRlsDKbEC3uX+KocYvEgcXHE 48OhtF6QmohbsLFvRvt/5PlGAgFtxrEZJQIEq5xuk3Qiucl8UtyAs7uWphx3ewPvd7NR qeguT4Mqn+L0fpgIMGcj4M81G5XJQY9WnSNATeA9obG5qOV2EyHBZjOOJPDudInnYDKC nCdqipMfmtgpZ47lPTOQPkizRoihgiKBD3IR+alyZXXCrykYEbmWiZiah38LARjtw4J0 9+M8aB5qRZSN6CfL50TQjTvaQAyTY1wEnErWkg9BfFeKQZvrfPmWLUFrSVdD22WI0YkY zC7w== 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=f7nMPtpzbAmku7K7BCw/lToQ51bKNfFJdwAQEv1RzCI=; b=t+FQ2s3MLveP6HkxStBtfGydMd0yuAUEYwjB4HpHvqHWx0A5AdWa5wUWvJSq/+OjNC dUloX4VL0LHreRjkLM9ljM83A2vSnK1t4j6EvzPL5oOHYaMIJLeuUzDfYe3cyDAwFyfi z/9SJpl7UydUAxbPg+F0jaw55NIR2L7NMmRrbzhvUEmBxdtf6iZj2/4W+Zwa0xJcB69s qOglOKIIV5jcISLOHNgEyoxo1aXodIHbRAEiyfaw8PjpM5odtmFIJKUxRZtS6unoXkSK dDzr/1rD1qBrJHNchF8s1AXIyIlLBbbmpDMI60zV2iKKYY2szawuYvDdHGerPBkhcbzG UmrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530LmqLnqgP3lOAZlkErvTyTj0MaEtDeEzxI3fDRIvAxlv4JVnSt b0NtVGn4WDV0nKb8dFF1UErEHinxcycgMT5OJ1s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy4A4ly+pGCkX/IgOASgY/Gcfsa61+raxT9I9DQAlNQ4nKn6dVvCaX2VZ/CWc0KJjp7+u3RODbm8aIkhKnMGlc= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b55c:: with SMTP id a28mr14962098ljn.42.1593772020132; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 03:27:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 12:26:44 +0200 Message-ID: To: Benjamin Eberlei Cc: Benas IML , PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001cf69e05a986f7a2" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Make constructors and destructors return void From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --0000000000001cf69e05a986f7a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 11:04 AM Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:12 PM Benas IML > wrote: > > > Hey internals, > > > > I have opened the voting for the RFC, let's hope everything is going > > to be smooth :). If you have any other questions, let me know! > > > > RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/make_ctor_ret_void > > > > Best regards, > > Benas Seliuginas > > > > Hi Benas, > > I wanted to raise what I believe is an issue with the secondary vote going > against PHP policy to introduce a BC break in 8.1, I would imagine policy > overrules voting decision here and it wouldn't matter what people voted > for, it will only be removed at the earliest in 9.0 > To answer the policy question: RFCs can override or change general policy -- after all, policy is decided through the RFC process itself. To give a precedent where this happened for a "pure" BC break: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args But more generally, many RFCs will have "minor" BC breaks as part of a larger proposal, and RFC acceptance also always implies that we consider those BC breaks acceptable for the targeted PHP version. Now, whether this RFC actually makes a sufficient case to disregard policy here is a different question, and at the discretion of the voters. Regards, Nikita --0000000000001cf69e05a986f7a2--