Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:122020
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-1364-ga51d5fd3b7-fm-20231219.001-ga51d5fd3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <fb703ad4-fe74-4872-89a5-402a65499505@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH5C8xWF9tHNP3rMVwoZMqzG52NmsyrE7WhO07f4SeSSF9iqCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAH5C8xX5Wzbm1eerFJJ5hCZdUU8rci8NhBwkSwprRKAG531G7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEKnhAFDYiPoKwjj2J6akEaZ6WgHkaYia9su_fNQGSKidCt=aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPFaMLWSW+eu8c0v91KLbcZJqcKKDbYZ3OthtNXk805p0AvQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <04DC3709-3B46-41C0-976E-E6AB28BC0D34@edison.tech>
 <CAFPFaMK+Rm5W3j_W5e3Cjc=HNBcA=U-Va5qbuOXz+q1ccpvswg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK1yXLuypfyzAaa+QRVuGJ__da87=-h7a3tSXqq3jL_Xm1c9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPzBOBPBdFy6rfUkChnv+wM_Yw0ov_XOzyoDP59RRwhy9ET=bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xWF9tHNP3rMVwoZMqzG52NmsyrE7WhO07f4SeSSF9iqCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:39:19 +0000
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Resource to object conversion
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023, at 10:18 AM, M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis wrote:
> Hey Everyone,
>
> Sorry for the radio silence, I was busy with other tasks. However, I
> managed to improve the RFC in the recent days the following way:
> - most importantly, I changed the suggested approach of the conversion=
 in
> case of primary stream resources: the is_resource() hack mentioned a f=
ew
> times
> before would be used in this case.
> - I added impact analysis for each resource category + listed all func=
tions
> which return streams (even though they are not impacted).
> - I added more examples, reasoning etc.
>
> Please read the updated proposal because I intend to start the vote sh=
ortly
> after the holiday season.
>
> Thanks,
> M=C3=A1t=C3=A9

I'm concerned about the 3 way vote on the first item.  Requiring a 2/3 m=
ajority on a 3-mutually-exclusive option setup doesn't really work, math=
ematically, and it's very possible for that to result in no conclusion. =
 (Or vote splitting, if 3/4 of voters want to change but split on when, =
would that result in do-nothing winning?)  Since "do nothing" is one of =
the options, I would recommend an RCV/IRV vote here.

The rest of the RFC looks good to me.

--Larry Garfield