Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119471
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH5C8xWsBsuzJ-7xwisUZxY+kxSmh-PhkAkPWh68c=qDs=nLrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAwdEzC6e2o9dyV4Y_Z73Cz2cmN5rbh7Mc4WXtbZt_zZAvJaSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xX_JjdF-7PHHAiTP_Jy73MyBWzJbQxt4LV6Qtajxd8Zug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKWdMujGDSkR3ksKT5uK+LUVa_REf=Oq7-vTSEWF+8DWgy46yQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANeKSiQGk6f1sKa4=nHkYF+EuAKYLOe8nx+Fx=3DTmjR4Wdr9A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANeKSiQGk6f1sKa4=nHkYF+EuAKYLOe8nx+Fx=3DTmjR4Wdr9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 11:37:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKWdMujykb6YBZHVmZuCDP6dMFK5mQH-7XudQRPmwA5SwLxcvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benas IML <benas.molis.iml@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>, 
	=?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu?= <drealecs@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000ad27d05f40c54a4"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Typed class constants
From: mbniebergall@gmail.com (Mark Niebergall)

--0000000000000ad27d05f40c54a4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Benas,

On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 9:29 AM Benas IML <benas.molis.iml@gmail.com> wrote:

> [copy of the email that I have accidentally sent to Mark individually]
>
> Hey,
>
> As much as I appreciate your enthusiasm and ideas, adding your name on
> my original RFC and editing its contents without my approval is not
> acceptable. Especially considering that contents of the RFCs are a
> direct representation of my stance and views on a particular feature.
> As such, I would not like to have my name put on proposals that I have
> never discussed nor proposed myself. In this case, I explicitly have
> given M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 permission to continue working on this RFC and in ta=
king it
> under his wing.
>

My apologies. Good luck on the RFC.


>
> That being said, feel free to open a new RFC yourself and copy the
> contents of your previous proposal from the wiki's history tab.
>

I will be doing that. I'll give the typed constants RFC time to settle
first.


>
> Best regards,
> Benas
>
> P.S.: Next time, try also contacting me over Room 11 or GitHub, given
> that I rarely check this email.
>
>
Thanks for the updated contact information.


> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 02:22, Mark Niebergall <mbniebergall@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > M=C3=A1t=C3=A9, Benas, Internals,
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 7:34 AM M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis <kocsismate90@gmai=
l.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alexandru, Mark,
> > >
> > >
> > > > 1. Why is object type not supported? I can't see a real reason and
> also
> > > > there is no explanation why.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for this, mentioning object as unsupported was an artifact from
> the
> > > original version of the RFC which
> > > was created back then when constants couldn't be objects. After your
> > > comments, I removed the object type
> > > from the list. Thank you for catching this issue!
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2. In the examples for illegal values, it would be good to explain
> why
> > > > they are not legal.
> > > >   I don't understand why "public const ?Foo M =3D null;" wouldn't b=
e
> legal.
> > > >   I think "?Foo" should work the same as "Foo|null" that would be
> legal.
> > > >
> > > > It was there due to the same reason as above. I removed this exampl=
e
> now.
> > >
> > > I had updated the RFC page, but it looks like the changes were
> reverted in
> > > > December 2022. The updated version I was working on was:
> > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typed_class_constants?rev=3D1648644637
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, the original author of the RFC was surprised to find your
> changes in
> > > his RFC (
> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/5815#issuecomment-1356049048
> > > ),
> > > so he restored his original version.
> > > Next time, please either consult with the author of an RFC if you
> intend to
> > > modify the wording, or you can simply create a brand new RFC - even i=
f
> it's
> > > very similar to the original one (just don't
> > > forget to add proper references).
> > >
> >
> > See https://externals.io/message/117406#117460 about contact attempts
> that
> > were made (with no response), and other discussions about why I used th=
e
> > existing RFC instead of creating a new one. Next time I will just start=
 a
> > new RFC if an author is non-responsive. This is also a bigger policy
> > question for other seemingly-abandoned RFCs. If it is agreed that a new
> RFC
> > should be created in this scenario, I will update
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto since that scenario is not specifically
> > covered.
> >
> > That being said, the RFC was discussed publicly actively last year, and
> the
> > RFC was revised based on the public input. With the reverting, valuable
> > community input was dismissed. An effort should be made to address
> > applicable previous community input instead of just reverting it out.
> >
> > I will work on a new RFC to follow this implementation to introduce
> > inheritance.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The updated RFC looks good, thanks for working on it. You may want to
> > > > review the revised version I had worked on for implementation ideas=
,
> and
> > > > review the previous conversations.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I also saw your proposal, but to be honest, I'm not that fond of the
> idea.
> > > This doesn't mean though that you shouldn't create a new RFC or an
> > > implementation, as others may find it useful. If you kick off
> > > the project, I'll surely try to review your work.
> > >
> >
> > That is fine to break it apart as a future RFC. I have seen too many re=
al
> > world use cases where inheritance with typed constants would solve
> > problems. See https://externals.io/message/117406#117408 for an
> > explanation. Adding typed constants independently adds value, so it
> should
> > progress.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis
> > >
> >
> > Overall, I'm happy to see that this is progressing again, thanks for
> > working on it.
> >
> > - Mark Niebergall
>

--0000000000000ad27d05f40c54a4--