Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123088
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPyj-LBMQEJ=2BF=xk_on4O2xTU+MM2XRAZ5g=uPwVOf=bh+sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <66154AA0.1040905@adviesenzo.nl> <66160A1D.4060409@adviesenzo.nl> <cd0da1e3-1906-462f-9677-7df19987b6ec@beccati.com>
In-Reply-To: <cd0da1e3-1906-462f-9677-7df19987b6ec@beccati.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:00:00 -0300
Message-ID: <CAGS0MVB0KQLgs7hD4=9ks7txF2vW_jb=pY1whKKHMs+pWdOyZg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote announcement] Property hooks
To: Robert Landers <landers.robert@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fa29350615bd9f84"
From: ericklima.comp@gmail.com (Erick de Azevedo Lima)

--000000000000fa29350615bd9f84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> As someone who has spent a number of years writing C#, the RFC look>
quite sane.
Same here.

> Removing it because "it complicates things" isn't really a good reason,
IMHO.
I think the same. FFI, for instance, is powerful but one can make a mess
with it.

> Then watching the feedback here, at the 11th hour, is super saddening.
Again, same here . If this feedback was given during the "heat of the
discussion", maybe it could lead the discussion to a place where less
variants would
be introduced on this first implementation and a shorter syntax could be
introduced later on, like the arrow functions were introduced after
anonymous functions.

Maybe if such a feedback was given before and it was decided to go for a
trimmed version of the feature, maybe Ilija/Larry could have had less work
to implement and test all the variantes they've done. I think if a person
has such numerous concerns, it should be exposed ASAP even if your thoughts
are not totally clear. If you had a chat directly with Ilija/Larry, they
would be aware of such concerns and would expend efforts to address these
concerns.

Regards,
Erick

--000000000000fa29350615bd9f84
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt; As someone who has spent a number of years writing C#=
, the RFC look&gt; quite sane.<div>Same here.</div><div><br></div><div>&gt;=
 Removing it because &quot;it complicates things&quot; isn&#39;t really a g=
ood reason, IMHO.<br></div><div>I think the same. FFI, for instance, is pow=
erful but one can make a mess with it.</div><div><br></div><div>&gt; Then w=
atching the feedback here, at the 11th hour, is super saddening. <br></div>=
<div>Again, same here . If this feedback was given during the &quot;heat of=
 the discussion&quot;, maybe it could lead the discussion to a place where =
less variants would</div><div>be introduced on this first implementation an=
d a shorter syntax could be introduced later on, like the arrow functions w=
ere introduced after anonymous functions.</div><div><br></div><div></div><d=
iv>Maybe if such a feedback was given before and it was decided to go for a=
 trimmed version of the feature, maybe Ilija/Larry could have had less work=
 to implement and test all the variantes they&#39;ve done. I think if a per=
son has such numerous concerns, it should be exposed ASAP even if your thou=
ghts are not totally clear. If you had a chat directly with Ilija/Larry, th=
ey would be aware of such concerns and would expend efforts to address thes=
e concerns.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Erick<br></div></di=
v>

--000000000000fa29350615bd9f84--