Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115847 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70811 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2021 07:29:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2021 07:29:50 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BC11804BD for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 01:04:15 -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_40,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,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-pj1-f50.google.com (mail-pj1-f50.google.com [209.85.216.50]) (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 ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 01:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-f50.google.com with SMTP id n13-20020a17090a4e0d00b0017946980d8dso6020357pjh.5 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 01:04:15 -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=ZDG37K4ILpdxXpxA4Ee/wkqH6AAuFdPZs20nuZaI10w=; b=XDVCd2LAPsjlmy25WaI+AOFXG1evdxErNlT2Nq6kvnULAS62Cx8oDBPIMt2mx5rlDp EOOKG7riPfw+3dPXd+Djj4U/v4oglF1Iah1ZF3GsuAV8jrjEu6qllUAkYk5+M6j5+766 5Ojd0E6KoI04S5f3sD2GLcKi5wfh9YdIwVc4bqW0AKqCJ8EoEETrC4d6K53qYaKA0IQY wjJHQiNyWohdzLsxRtCta+KoyVVbwyzOhR39bBCe19wgDvcGn0M++0d1VDwBVLzOWyk2 h40ipvYT5pUolje4S3eD/WpjuZmFb4d33v8OJ+7uty+V+juO1W+D3IR17ybofbAC6Rey gMhA== 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=ZDG37K4ILpdxXpxA4Ee/wkqH6AAuFdPZs20nuZaI10w=; b=W3+6bxRsvDuZlSk4FL3BD4KpqQlpJo54EC9Ew8QVnJ3ltWcToFsXOb0UKwsdif7ETX 3C/oT4s0Zdj+iqCF16kwA1v+JEyGi1DbojE0Vf37Ys6pikSGQy2EfV19qZoW7URc6o+B n/Vct/VUpdgAIq/oxoWs1qLZhxUgVIkBvLQB6mWRs2pSjprp8FtSjAIV0n6cWF16vjIj RITo4X0TNwzD1/BbBMfvQMxnxaNEA1LKJeWPbQKtA2r9ZYR9q65j5rnHH0f5LAsNyvCO O0jqhALK9wzvkC2mGRKg0s62+l0ZAj9s+ne5mp/kwQ6u/qa9mQIqb0660NhiTg4neMxW b1hw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531kWni1BO54DZnkbfT4X5peFkuxGmneQML2CXBv7FBm7J8NH/Qy dLoAwTbykbATyFJFi7LtADd+CqRpXi5jOAxp/LY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz2Docb9uXwIJaAkKv63FYiQ1V3oQS75Su/dxGuajhBHmAWiQWOb09kGP1v1cDqxzb+iE9L2yJCNl7sIKZrVgs= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:5583:: with SMTP id c3mr2809447pji.133.1629965054290; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 01:04:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:32:11 +0430 Message-ID: To: Deleu Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000eafb605ca71d097" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Guidelines for RFC post feature-freeze From: hossein.baghayi@gmail.com (Hossein Baghayi) --0000000000000eafb605ca71d097 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello, One question I have (as I always do) regarding nullable intersection types, (which is a forbidden topic and I know I shouldn't bring it up). I'd love to know how `Consistency` plays a role in new RFCs. Are we striving for consistency? Is it a value here? Or simply it is a side effect? We sorta have nullability everywhere, `function/method parameters`, `return types`, properties. (please let me know if I am wrong; I'd love to know :D) Until comes an RFC which intentionally and reasonably drops an area for a later time but in doing so brings in a new feature that is not consistent with other parts of the software. Now we don't have the consistency which we used to have. I know it is supposed to be temporary but it doesn't make it less inconsistent! Then came a new RFC which is addressing an issue, which from a different point of view it could be regarded as fixing this inconsistency. Now, should we discard this issue and let the inconsistency creep into the system? What approaches are we employing for tackling these sorts of issues? Do we even care about that? :/ From yet a different point of view, for users unaware of this inconsistency, it could easily waste their precious time. (Maybe seconds :D ; it doesn't make it less precious) PS: I'm not conveying anything here (:D). I am simply a curious person. I also know what feature freeze means and I'm all for it. :) Regards, --0000000000000eafb605ca71d097--