Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118671 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11071 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2022 15:50:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2022 15:50:47 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14B018033A for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 08:50:46 -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=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS24940 176.9.0.0/16 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from chrono.xqk7.com (chrono.xqk7.com [176.9.45.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 08:50:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bastelstu.be; s=mail20171119; t=1663689044; bh=g/9izmlXmwer6TGk3uWgXeCyIZzuTl5IuE1B+zLhM+A=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=aZxMJA8rZ4d7Je8P3+8MtAZZotEUAVLg7vbFsKX4lj2g2e0BoA+SrxQXs4ksZEopK hc1ZcgB5Cdbq+629iwf+bZPJrApD4MLGsHRK/HvG6AO13W9+urDsd8YoXCZu0asd92 5koyjHX29ov3Yx0bJxye21xvu3sFXIL3MswLsJLkHqZyBu+eRTBnEErSbHFblX+Z3W FBqSGF1ckDdxFFrLOW8ffoDfSeWYpo650nnev77hwvFzSc2A8586pxPpYO84dw4LKO kVSKUsaBCVuGduLemY3bVSFzIZQNR8iK9VqD2huSAP2/uAy+9VLGV7maIctXXS7YGO vmS/SD7G5y9og== Message-ID: <97b198f6-eb5b-c737-9ab9-8448b7538818@bastelstu.be> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 17:50:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US To: juan carlos morales Cc: PHP Internals List References: <8ad11ab3-672d-18af-3b75-3255a0c7ac53@bastelstu.be> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC json_validate() - status: Under Discussion From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=c3=bcsterhus?=) Hi On 9/20/22 00:15, juan carlos morales wrote: >> The RFC still contains a non-empty "Open Issues" section. This needs to >> be resolved before the vote starts. >> >> I would also recommend inserting a closed voting widget (or multiple, if >> you want to have additional votes for the details), so that it's clear >> for everyone how exactly the vote will look like. > > Tim, how should I proceed with the Open Issues/Questions? is only > about the return value of the function. > > Should I create a poll for that? Should I leave it like this and > decide during Voting phase? This question raised during the mailing > discussion and never moved forward, can you advice please? Or I should > delete the Open Issues/question and move forward with the current > approach I choosed? It's your RFC, you do whatever you are comfortable with. If you feel that a vote is the best option, then add a vote. If you as the author want to decide what's "best", then that's also fine. It just needs to be clear what the function will look and feel like before the vote starts - so leaving it as it is and deciding yourself *during* voting is not acceptable. Best regards Tim Düsterhus