Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124241
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <TYWP286MB2251C8405979D2DB3F77579DF2D82@TYWP286MB2251.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <TYWP286MB2251C8405979D2DB3F77579DF2D82@TYWP286MB2251.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 15:32:42 +0900
Message-ID: <CAH19jWhGZDZGepijOUK9xKi9rT5VEvsxps38NpReBBWS55uOsg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]I'd like to see the RFCs that deprecate the FFI
 non-static approach start voting
To: chopins xiao <chopins.xiao@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: shinji.igarashi@gmail.com (shinji igarashi)

Hi!

I am rather more in favour of what you are proposing than the removal of
static calls to FFI methods.

In my opinion, it would be possible to drop the deprecation if it is agreed
in the RFC process. The static access to FFI methods is not yet a feature
actually removed, and I think it may even be possible to remove the depreca=
tion
in a point release of 8.3.

I am a little more worried about the way you communicate than the content
of your proposal. For example, in my opinion, "stupid" is too strong a word
for the tone of language typically found in this internals ML.

If you have no intention of ridiculing the person who proposed deprecation
or people who voted yes to the proposal, and the strong language was used
just because of the language barrier, it would be probably better to
make that clear.

Perhaps no one cares about trivial wording. Personally I don't care.
But if by any chance strong wording prevents constructive discussion,
no one will be happy.


--
Shinji Igarashi

2024=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=886=E6=97=A5(=E5=9C=9F) 11:17 chopins xiao <chopins.xi=
ao@gmail.com>:
>
> My Submit RFC:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ffi-non-static-deprecated
>
> Since no one responded to the first announcement, I am not sure if anyone
> agrees, so I will announce it again=E3=80=82
>
> Since this RFC is the opposite of a PR, and the PR has already been merge=
d
> and is expected to be released in PHP 8.4, can the PR be revoked first?
> Or do you all agree with the stupid PR?