Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115794
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:09:05 +0100
To: Deleu <deleugyn@gmail.com>
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CADK1yXL=HdA5jF9F09vAgvZYzDpxcuN-1vxudwmZ6BXkjtuPKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADK1yXLZzoOjjNcpZ5ZtV9kSNgw4=SW9G74o26eLdAYV5cDzAQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2108241825130.2773@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl> <CADK1yXL=HdA5jF9F09vAgvZYzDpxcuN-1vxudwmZ6BXkjtuPKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C7EF7C8B-A617-4C44-AAD5-B970098EC5AB@php.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Guidelines for RFC post feature-freeze
From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)

On 24 August 2021 19:53:57 BST, Deleu <deleugyn@gmail=2Ecom> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 19:28 Derick Rethans <derick@php=2Enet> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Deleu wrote:
>>
>> > We recently had the Nullable Intersection Types RFC process in an
>> > unconventional way starting a new RFC post feature freeze=2E If memor=
y
>> > serves me right, another similar incident happened with the Attribute=
s
>> > RFC which had a syntax that could not be implemented without a
>> > secondary RFC [1] and went through a secondary RFC which proposed a
>> > different syntax [2]=2E
>>
>> I find this comparison disingenuous=2E
>>
>
>I want to state that I had no intention to compare the RFCs or even bring
>their merits into discussion=2E What I intended to show is that we have 8=
=2E0
>which had an RFC that would classify as Refinement RFC and 8=2E1 again ha=
ving
>another RFC that also classifies under the same category=2E

That's where I disagree already=2E The nullable intersections RFC isn't a =
refinement, it's a new feature=2E=20

cheers=20
Derick=20