Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117697 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 51153 invoked from network); 8 May 2022 09:57:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 8 May 2022 09:57:54 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EE218005D for ; Sun, 8 May 2022 04:36:05 -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=-2.8 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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 [212.227.17.20]) (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 ; Sun, 8 May 2022 04:36:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1652009763; bh=gCMw2R5tc0QeM4VQHxi1xp9UPelvhiEHMKAKT8HuRAE=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=PddG4mOZkaE4o7rTXP8s7g895vAD3zBQieabeRC9pxKbeClwg6ncaM0ImhbDO0H7y 3F+pAm4sDvXcdWQ+pDvPiwrKOiSJHuZfEOfid2W4i8mi+f9bcQjtP8jwNOn8eUrk8Y NIZLWDH9TyM67EUiP01iydeJfZKnQlEUCBJ6i+PI= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.178.120] ([24.134.51.41]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mi2Jt-1oI4953eOv-00e91Y for ; Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:02 +0200 Message-ID: <149af8ae-caa8-9dea-63c6-39f4c3891916@gmx.net> Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 13:36:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0 Content-Language: en-US To: internals@lists.php.net References: <71cf150f-974a-4944-a1a4-42618c160948@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:xdwAGJIy+a5I30x39FUE/jSIwJDsk7x9iucbrD5TrjKOiudKbMu m304LPwRPr84CcSGmaXaqarSHcwkz7I9msyij6YAy0QrXkA4I9/+3AyHkMH7BBbV3aHJkUo KohBd+wcnS+8SGmYPgm2+y8ZoFGQLycgmCPGXWNNsOEMHuyTkirXJMilM4AC2pnAHwFDP0s kW1IZfCXo4/TcY0aeWAbQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:8uXVZfohYhk=:EtAv43EcLvklW397Wnz5Cr tfEr8FQyxiPozLZMlkL/5AOY/v+LEZaqaThArX/QafzP1PMKATUJG/fsqF/7RTjeh+HMLaO2j P0KMJYus5coeyz+q0ev5Iea9U8ThoDj37HI3tVQ0kpDLzpBn71GWpM2ldoPnzMvtDtAeboT81 tCq2qy4B0js5z1/Hw52WpH8WOVcjvLHB1G4wjMpHprO9NFowqDJsktohEtkoBvrq93NBf/fa9 /S04sdmAan7fQIO7YEmdRmOy0bdG9hiPZiyLyJFQtH2tcPvwi2+vu5Rgn1BJNUlMJ34Cz0Z/i b49AIIajqd9SGPOq3aKTSGd24V2Sk8A9keQ9Tlm/oCj8zj3RVG8D+QBqMZqwZRAMw9Fr8cXqd C3i1BiPpTZreWDZkOPYB93sQl6sZ+0sMRh0ASOxBHc66irN1VD1y38FBZmbv5F89Br/FMhSlk sDJ+0CUJJD3TdeYlb/RcbZVSAzWKm+UtODKnVJILuTlCxfJPjfIeEolzNOWIrUwYSPTuv5i93 t+xMJh3UJbcIa6Fk/JRez26IkPmxagNEwydVW0Nfrd5g6VnDmJyS1vSmxvev31RLOiTjdc4xE rZc0OoH8nzLSANuZ2tWs5SyaCj1IVaTGl5zEpUsOZoeJmuBX145JR9NCJE9EyOsO6OCbm+B/y RKXY4oWoYHr2fhNp1NZDZNBcl6jvj1ShGk3TrVMAclYln6XS9tVYq4b3eOJErMif+i4ALwJEB JGoMDcoFaGODjfIbZ95kr+Z5ARjGiykp66upEuCrTymoN+5AvnbmslzDHnW9JHIPy1fcLzZSa g/wpLPhFoB6Fht9u72V6Or+RF2i1yoSb5tzrRCoZ15zH4uNpfRLoEvyZSzpPz2/7VJdNkQ9Ct sANcwis0qYtULL/Nl7AGLf9t0XrhXw6geAGryPsBIsx7ZLl/bjK7ZgeD+nkSEMUBdB3y4TYH+ LYg3Bp51sozUrRseRgoavFf6eehfMJXPtTg9dTbhb8DpH5QWOWWveTNfG+HjhboKPN6QUv5FF Tc/sV9/p+snSYYEShehSwn4hCavTau/hJPcekqoS1mch+LdgIgA4kgW4IjDxsVJ28d/V19jRQ nbqAAfoe2B38Og= Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] The future of objects and operators From: a.leathley@gmx.net (Andreas Leathley) On 07.05.22 22:59, Jordan LeDoux wrote: > I like the way you organized the different levels of support within the > feature, it's a good organizational structure for thinking about the > feature-set. Given the feedback though, I found myself a little concerne= d > that if I created a Level 1 proposal, it's very possible that the people= in > groups 1 and 3 above might vote for it. However, in doing so it's also v= ery > possible that all the use-cases those voters care about would then be > covered, and many would then block anything which helps use-cases they d= o > not commonly use. In essence, the particular feedback I received made me > concerned that passing a Level 1 RFC would basically guarantee that Leve= l > 2+ would never happen until the voter base itself was significantly chan= ged. Creating "smaller steps" (within a certain feature set) seems to have been the more successful route for PHP RFCs and not necessarily slowed down further enhancements, in my estimation. The more one single RFC is about, the more there is to possibly dislike. It is also easier to reason about less changes at any one point in time and make a more compelling case for the changes. So I think your overall goal of more feature-complete operator overloading remains viable even if you start "small" with a level 1 proposal.