Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:116814 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 53745 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2022 08:59:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 5 Jan 2022 08:59:11 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F85B1804C9 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 02:06:36 -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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS8560 212.227.0.0/16 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (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 02:06:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1641377194; bh=3oBP3PxeYVkLanrHMlJJ6b/yvmpQ60YnhSVIXM1ol+g=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=bb88FSM/i8A1ESpiwTOm0dONstkvZvn50/A1XuEQTmZbUvEkY3RP7DtxWdC0JQtkt 2i/Hua9tRaulFa477Vw4NWFIyhS2PplZUGMo4hDbOJzriTSN80gGCCq6mxCXwg9WUx R9F9+OMqJv/FPFxtQAQ7ZGtEKfqBWcYJG9vvbs+I= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.50.96] ([91.138.42.26]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Md6Qr-1mWGXB0LoJ-00aHwk for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2022 11:06:34 +0100 To: internals@lists.php.net References: Message-ID: <6f9b8b78-4306-c847-59a1-81b5ba3cf39c@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 11:06:33 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:4/juC4Qkyhh5dqQLD6Zh0j84iOD1Rj228VnP5z2rCJqMR7NKfKM 48JxL80lFl13idT3U/Rxs7PBrRS5m+zvBWOPiCXx4+vdoCyjNey2QS3kzb9bdkl2aqHTRu4 oQGZVIlw8VXSmBALWZIrBSHZkq1ayxv0DiwF+yXzrfTfqOR/lw/lQy+pQEZV+Pa18sodpYV ub7BBhCDkA8dF9OE5xwJg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:sLFF3clYzf8=:yckL8TVe30YSLlvaoIonF0 aF2wFax/3XlgkExMZmGP+JMwCkDchHvraWPp86eZQHeUGWdaGpl+6NEpQQ/nqGp7PCFJ+4G/L n1jFXhZxCbO71BUbR7uEWgHTy0Jt8v2KkXIAjiMJtJ60AS66LBBe9ZsFJDhWCB7NPfHys7UtQ DlljsaEDwK1zKuZBNOpKxPX/LUoQzxuj5cg+xJuzUEycojkyoOOCwp78eO23cIoa7HSk5jpbD BP8y8U6uZFsCSws/rJBBCyB/2xOzYlPWR5763bWbmhlh1JD0bpRz2pwFcbrocsU/wgNQ5bn6w /TrQnkoq4bXnZAMdI0V7GuwwjivTmpEAt+CsHHEt8PeIp3Da2b+P3kHd5lXN/SjFTMNwwW0Q6 SHCEjZSd4+74oJS/uISsgizWt8lMdUpl5EKUciB5XdSV4W0fA6WDLgIqBSYeVeba1xiHAXUHz 3m1+imNku3DHOgVZgSNW/K0eesekPgzwuvfD6nN5y7JRURdlTTkQD8XnrPvvuAHldDjhZOJFI uWeNeRw9efrdci/Q9GNgbdLxxHtcD8Fi6dmCZTI/AWkkjNF1IKs/QLD6YQ/iyCziKm0sjOzyW rhTka0Bb2QV9KBZhkcgERVBGl+TEO8YV3K2zFrP9iombGtUUPfCFcBQeM1hWXqzhFgRjJUz+j rOgUjchJjNMxtm6KwFFvC3ek5qrU7oZirrUBcGiDsSYnc5nqxQZioef+aRSQgN0Vr7qNTBC9k 79l+yG/R1rbLg98qcWGDfsF97W1JfpGhdmAr4vPiELg6z71NCpCZHcX0GqRqrEhPeW1LWk9Cs PAaBGY8c/VpQ5TqmTQlIfHov7YuJgQ354ILR+az3kMvTp5oV/vBSfjlnu/DMWc0qMxY8jsEU1 y9xArv6s/ZC4zwIUH71K2e9PLDe1nlQT8R3oPBCLuVf5qdsQ68PO2T6rxQPmDOLmfsB4OPfBn sI2bQeftek+g6kJbo+rFOpNCttuU9fmGLqSHhoo2HhOrBfrjBD/DMRhVZGfLvEyRFAR5Q+D3E 27GytKoNuH5QtqUJdHt6e2Uv/xaCn3lxpaeXOtTuDDuA2G8hXfT1MV6VXxco97NF3zowdZTkt AGmjSdb4Yiqrck= Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] User Defined Operator Overloads From: a.leathley@gmx.net (Andreas Leathley) On 05.01.22 10:42, Jordan LeDoux wrote: > 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. I would let the vote go on, as there are still many voters who have not voted on this yet, giving the proposal more exposure and also giving you a more complete feedback about the outcome. And if this RFC has less voters in total when it ends than other RFCs, that could also be good to know. There have been quite a few big PHP features which failed in the first attempt, but then easily passed in a later attempt after more discussions and changes. Also, your hint about the operator keyword decision and on what that is based on might offer more avenues to change some minds - personally, I would be interested to read a blog article about this (even if it is quite lengthy, and even though I don't have a vote and am not designing languages), and linking that in an RFC could then be some helpful background for some people, even if not everyone reads it. And such an article might be interesting to people outside of PHP.