Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:116812 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 49923 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2022 08:35:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 5 Jan 2022 08:35:04 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BEF180539 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 01:42:29 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,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-lf1-f48.google.com (mail-lf1-f48.google.com [209.85.167.48]) (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 ; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 01:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-f48.google.com with SMTP id x6so35035626lfa.5 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2022 01:42:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MHfFfE+lFqFSL/qDor+J/ry/o1HQfxserWPk/5pi0gQ=; b=l+pWdnIdKJ/BCrkPpU5IKQAf7d8oEqXPG6jMsFf1Jr8ycs3jY2PwrZXLaIs2kUOaB7 1KC+KyFMrPXx562tkC8xyL7t01dH9PpeDQp6Cw47AKuYeBKGBdiswco4iXmfsFLFvBVM 65CBQ7en+vJLw83Vo3+ARvErqhxV5mGQSG7yE+6Yl0kN5dNLi0aUExRTVfDt3xDoRFAI IxwRKlT0/AU/HCGvyTZzYDYBUCc6qRlu05IpFOckE/2EwYiBmXgVammlEERx0lje+CFc OujmyDO0LmdbzlmjpyVrbooOmLveCNH5xbGzCX9C5ItLkuYqvQD3s9Jg9ccaKykizOdS m1zg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MHfFfE+lFqFSL/qDor+J/ry/o1HQfxserWPk/5pi0gQ=; b=JU0qA82qLkPkiRmKUCgb8X0/4+PvMzjhVIii9YKH1Tb4M/DyEauqAQJjgQBnO9ffEj frX7diA7Jl5ob9Qfu0NLTSJBGsbRRk0A1hLdcUGnPn11uOhEmwp/dNOTdGS3RjYl5AOu yb71dPzcK+ga7b40bPynjDOvnmLy4sZIQrhJnveGo3PXfGKXoHunyp1PejuO1VxU3EZU GVeMaSZ0ztvInmcx0UwBmyQTWgayNl7vLyV1cO8DArQDyZq5tyy3C3b+4FPlR2AKaOGl 9g5+A3ujkoTCcd+aQL1oDZOVy6I3+1Z5ynA7hCNIpVKn7qx21SppSGR2/E7vUYpdD2Ud o75Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532o0dou39UNUF32mRNfbXruMrK21WhogsCw29vn2AI3jWURttcl dLUbkoCosCB7oeMxNW0d0pDSpfkeQVq4F3VT7ms= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyI7cOIwo/+5ytQvtBHWX2/U4gjOQ0331VX4c8aUxtwmzG2tAKr4jx8PqQHr6Rj/g4qmPPwEprfpLa8O+stGmo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:c13:: with SMTP id z19mr45195258lfu.640.1641375747941; Wed, 05 Jan 2022 01:42:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 01:42:14 -0800 Message-ID: To: Pierre Joye Cc: Nikita Popov , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000662a2805d4d29297" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] User Defined Operator Overloads From: jordan.ledoux@gmail.com (Jordan LeDoux) --000000000000662a2805d4d29297 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:50 PM Pierre Joye wrote: > > I hesitated too, however I think we can't escape this feature. Like it > was for the annotation, we need to find a compromise. > > Your points are valid so I wonder if the RFC could be modified and get > to the point we could reach that compromise. There will be the > oppositions for the features as a whole, however I am optimistic about > our abilities to get there this time rather than wait yet again a few > years for something we know we will have anyway. > I will certainly be making changes before bringing this RFC back if it is rejected. What exactly those changes are I am not certain yet, but the feedback I receive here from voters will obviously have a large impact on that. As i mentioned elsewhere, swapping to a magic method syntax would be about 2-3 hours of work, I could do that very quickly. But I don't want to make a change like that after the voting has started, so any such changes will have to wait. I suppose the alternative would be to withdraw the RFC now that a wider variety of voters are providing feedback than the other three threads. Jordan --000000000000662a2805d4d29297--