Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124245
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <TYWP286MB2251C8405979D2DB3F77579DF2D82@TYWP286MB2251.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <CAH19jWhGZDZGepijOUK9xKi9rT5VEvsxps38NpReBBWS55uOsg@mail.gmail.com> <TYWP286MB2251551BAE2956FB5660159BF2D82@TYWP286MB2251.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <TYWP286MB2251551BAE2956FB5660159BF2D82@TYWP286MB2251.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 03:26:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMrTa2F2huyWOkQKocSfZmk8+ruQNw_VNncte8QWy906okrifQ@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: shinji igarashi <shinji.igarashi@gmail.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000a832f061c919c64"
From: jordan.ledoux@gmail.com (Jordan LeDoux)

--0000000000000a832f061c919c64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 1:09=E2=80=AFAM chopins xiao <chopins.xiao@gmail.com=
> wrote:

> The reason I'm not so polite is because I'm so angry. Firstly, the
> Deprecate functions with overloaded signatures RFC's  approach to FFI
> recommendations is unfounded, and secondly, the PR commit(
> https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/4acf0084dcd63ec369a610ec966db33f322=
694c8)
> has not been voted on by the RFC, and the implementation is very simple a=
nd
> crude, and does not solve the problem that FFI's API is not so elegant =
=EF=BC=88At
> the very least, there are shortcomings such as complicated API calls, mix=
ed
> use of multiple types of functions, and reduced performance=EF=BC=89.
> There are so many masters,I don't understand why it was merged. The commi=
t
> implementation was not voted on, and it is possible to withdraw it first.
>
>
Very unfortunate. Might have a solid technical case, but you:

1. Called someone who contributed to the project with actual code stupid
because they didn't do what you'd prefer.
2. Called the implementation they provided "simple and crude".
3. Asked about this on GitHub and were told it was voted on, but are
bringing this anyway: https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/14608
4. Opened this ML thread with a request/demand to revert the commit simply
because you want to talk about your proposal.
5. Did all of the above without any indication that you could provide a
non-"simple and crude" implementation since you are apparently better at it
than everyone else who contributes.

Regardless of the technical merits, you're not going to win many
discussions like that.

Jordan

--0000000000000a832f061c919c64
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 1:09=E2=80=AFA=
M chopins xiao &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:chopins.xiao@gmail.com">chopins.xiao@g=
mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-le=
ft:1ex">The reason I&#39;m not so polite is because I&#39;m so angry. First=
ly, the Deprecate functions with overloaded signatures RFC&#39;s=C2=A0 appr=
oach to FFI recommendations is unfounded, and secondly, the PR commit(<a hr=
ef=3D"https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/4acf0084dcd63ec369a610ec966db33=
f322694c8" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/php/php-=
src/commit/4acf0084dcd63ec369a610ec966db33f322694c8</a>) has not been voted=
 on by the RFC, and the implementation is very simple and crude, and does n=
ot solve the problem that FFI&#39;s API is not so elegant =EF=BC=88At the v=
ery least, there are shortcomings such as complicated API calls, mixed use =
of multiple types of functions, and reduced performance=EF=BC=89.<br>
There are so many masters,I don&#39;t understand why it was merged. The com=
mit implementation was not voted on, and it is possible to withdraw it firs=
t.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Very unfortunate. Might have a solid t=
echnical case, but you:<br><br></div><div>1. Called someone who contributed=
 to the project with actual code stupid because they didn&#39;t do what you=
&#39;d prefer.</div><div>2. Called the implementation they provided &quot;s=
imple and crude&quot;.</div><div>3. Asked about this on GitHub and were tol=
d it was voted on, but are bringing this anyway: <a href=3D"https://github.=
com/php/php-src/issues/14608">https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/14608</=
a></div><div>4. Opened this ML thread with a request/demand to revert the c=
ommit simply because you want to talk about your proposal.</div><div>5. Did=
 all of the above without any indication that you could provide a non-&quot=
;simple and crude&quot; implementation since you are apparently better at i=
t than everyone else who contributes.</div><div><br></div><div>Regardless o=
f the technical merits, you&#39;re not going to win many discussions like t=
hat.</div><div><br></div><div>Jordan<br></div></div></div>

--0000000000000a832f061c919c64--