Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124044
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\))
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Make the GMP class final
In-Reply-To: <dc109678-2fa3-4ce8-ae4e-f265a0f51034@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 10:55:55 -0500
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EC5AF1B3-F72E-456E-AE6B-5D306C61079A@benramsey.com>
References: <A-VVa99OkRF93daikrdikqWq55FOhVslGnY10m-4kVyVG0VJVEJoGmuLEKXJ3_4SmLoSisVxO2KlmWTVAFmSDKvHJjpeHSp6kuKFiovJprE=@gpb.moe>
 <386FE80E-9047-41A3-9858-ED4D4C67B30B@php.net>
 <dc109678-2fa3-4ce8-ae4e-f265a0f51034@app.fastmail.com>
To: Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>
From: ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)

> On Jun 29, 2024, at 03:11, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> wrote:
>=20
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2024, at 03:05, Ben Ramsey wrote:
>> > On Jun 28, 2024, at 18:53, Gina P. Banyard <internals@gpb.moe> =
wrote:
>> >=20
>> > Hello internals,
>> >=20
>> > I would like to present an RFC to make the GMP class final:
>> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/gmp-final
>> >=20
>> > This is short and to the point, and I intend to open voting for =
this after the mandatory discussion period of 2 weeks has happened, i.e. =
on the 13th of July 2024.
>> >=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Is this RFC intended to compete with the =E2=80=9COperator Overrides =
-- Lite Edition=E2=80=9D RFC, which explicitly allows extending \GMP?
>>=20
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/operator_overrides_lite
>>=20
>> (It also has a secondary vote to =E2=80=9Cdisallow extending the \GMP =
class if this RFC fails.=E2=80=9D
>>=20
>=20
> Yes, this is interesting. In any case, I feel like it should be final =
as it is currently and doesn't affect my RFC. If this RFC passes, it =
only changes a bit of the language in my RFC and removes a secondary =
vote.
>=20
> In any case, I haven't seen any emails of people flipping tables (like =
some proposals out there) to my RFC announcement, so I suspect it isn't =
a terrible idea and might actually have some merit; but I'm not going to =
get my hopes up. I rather suspect people are just ignoring it and will =
vote "decline" out-of-hand without thinking about it.


If this RFC passes, it would invalidate the first voting choice in the =
Operator Overrides RFC, which is:

> Allow extending the \GMP class and use a form of operator overloading

If this RFC passes to make the \GMP class final, and your RFC passes to =
allow extending the \GMP class, then I think we=E2=80=99re in a sort of =
weird limbo state. That would mean that different groups of voters =
participated in voting for each RFC, resulting in competing desires =
within the community.

We should probably combine these RFCs to avoid confusion and a =
conflicting state like I=E2=80=99ve described here.

Cheers,
Ben