Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111397 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 49828 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2020 18:46:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 9 Aug 2020 18:46:03 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F521804E3 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 10:44:58 -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=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wr1-f43.google.com (mail-wr1-f43.google.com [209.85.221.43]) (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 ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 10:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-f43.google.com with SMTP id a15so6093818wrh.10 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 10:44:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=4RwRRnDDnik8fygEqdKGmv4/KFFXFOLNlkTuaTDR5oo=; b=MTohVE3aEsSGQGr0pbPE7mWyCULWhFlyPTOcPj/D4Z2+n0Gk0s2qfba0I24n52a4ri U7GvV0OLVy7xSNV9RiUGqm966BJI+lsRRJARMhBPKMMHVgBPleepnmM2KMjV50xjJ9zm edAMwAuEGtydKQdKw2NXoUh8o5w/CtJtAA205PW7WceTMhPSGt7PYkYU0IIASnrPHO5L JLBe5DQ2iC535yUxXXn4RfXBSpa78vlA6dBgzXi5K2r1WKXrp7awN70sESZKoWf4rsZx B/MdN1KhyR68uYsAdu0FLuV8G+pR6LSiU9IQGA16wMskXN3Y96IwR80CUQWFvQ1ZTMvr 5zrQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=4RwRRnDDnik8fygEqdKGmv4/KFFXFOLNlkTuaTDR5oo=; b=bEKSYTzqUha/FXPIDarOszbhcGjwZ0CFSk52uyB9WyBqZpTbKFDJ0RIWBjvDGFyRH3 IMJpk5L7KImPiGvG6kheLnQt5s7RFJz3RNXcxVsj34iVSlcNqMdv8BqHZ61FciTZzteP KPNg7E11ffR4uI4LmNvnUEoJ0ss3P5ULwHfWDQ7tPhdPTr95n+T3ZpSyg3GE/Jm8qrbY DfOQEUS0zxhwbMwk/WH6uctHb0KmR7i/XvkT1BHGubz5UXloLPxQJyjmFATE2rfl1PUa zleUbher93v+66B98uWI5FoKUGW/7YtuEPdLRFx8g+kyIklfbyURs/5YwVCcvNyVJzEK oJkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5323k1C/v8yG5zNxrAlGjTxwecaQgxuEiq0xi0KyLC0yUHocsWUk KgP+ptwOpHfn4QcWDf/zJRvLcKNW X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy9VL8O611EqHCCig24mv1BAIszwRHoFjVIJbjDrn7RzMZ0jOL/VJxQ7lXoD+/oZFuoq2kIOQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:a1c6:: with SMTP id v6mr20873709wrv.197.1596995093385; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 10:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (cpc84253-brig22-2-0-cust114.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [81.108.141.115]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 8sm18653192wrl.7.2020.08.09.10.44.52 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Aug 2020 10:44:52 -0700 (PDT) To: internals@lists.php.net References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 18:44:52 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Proposal] Renamed parameters From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) On 09/08/2020 18:14, Chris Riley wrote: > Hi all, > > RFC link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/renamed_parameters > > I have spent the weekend working on a final revision for this RFC to > address several of the points brought up. My opinion on this RFC remains unchanged: - It would have been a reasonable alternative proposal to bring to the list 3 months ago [1] when Nikita formally resurrected his RFC - The problem it highlights would be a suitable reason to vote "No" to that proposal But: - It is effectively a complete replacement for, not a minor amendment of, the previous RFC - The solution it proposes was discussed on the list at least once but didn't receive substantial support [2] - It doesn't present any evidence that those who voted Yes to the previous RFC [3] were missing information, have changed their minds, or voted for a proposal they thought was non-optimal, in sufficient numbers to reverse a majority of 39. It is true that the behaviour of variadic parameters wasn't discussed very thoroughly, and some concerns with it were raised during voting [4]. An RFC amending or removing *that* behaviour would feel like a more reasonable amendment, since it doesn't change the core feature that has been overwhelmingly accepted. [1] https://externals.io/message/110004 [2] https://externals.io/message/109549#109558 (I used :$foo in my examples rather than $:foo, but it's otherwise an identical proposal I think) [3] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/named_params#vote [4] https://externals.io/message/110910#110961 Regards, -- Rowan Tommins (né Collins) [IMSoP]