Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115270
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bbd156a7-d323-4801-a6f6-866a324bc650@www.fastmail.com>
References: <222b3921-3d9b-47f9-8d13-e6a123f36fad@www.fastmail.com> <bbd156a7-d323-4801-a6f6-866a324bc650@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 21:44:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJpLVh2onpio+uHi9hFBLMvRMMUE9hZE59Rh+gLHLWrQA16vTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Vote] Partial Function Application
From: olleharstedt@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olle_H=C3=A4rstedt?=)

2021-07-01 17:12 GMT+02:00, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> Hi folks.  The vote for the Partial Function Application RFC is now
>> open, and will run until 30 June.
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/partial_function_application
>>
>> Of particular note, a few people had asked about using ...? instead of
>> ... for the variadic placeholder.  In the end we decided not to explore
>> that, as Nikita explained off-list it was actually more confusing, not
>> less, as it would suggest "placeholder for a variadic" rather than "a
>> placeholder that is variadic."  Otherwise, it's just more typing.  The
>> syntax choices section of the RFC has been updated accordingly.
>
>
> The vote has now closed.  The final result is:
>
> Yes; 29
> No: 20
> Percentage: 59.1%
>
> It has not passed.  Thank you everyone for your involvement.
>
> I'd like to bring this RFC back in the future in some form if either a less
> complex implementation or a stronger use case to justify the implementation
> can be found.  That would be a topic for a different thread at a different
> time.
>
> --Larry Garfield

Hi,

My personal impression is that the feedback loop between RFC authors
and voters seems a bit vague. Should the no-vote be split into "Yes,
but not like this", and "No, never"? Or maybe add a reason for the
no-vote? Like, too complex implementation, or weak use-case. I don't
know. Guessing should be reduced to a minimum, as should be wasted
effort.

I also believe the structure of the RFC itself could be more
disciplined, and collect pros and cons more clearly. Not this
particular RFC, but in general. I assume there's a scaffold being
used?

Olle