Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124251
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <TYWP286MB2251C8405979D2DB3F77579DF2D82@TYWP286MB2251.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <CAH19jWhGZDZGepijOUK9xKi9rT5VEvsxps38NpReBBWS55uOsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <TYWP286MB2251551BAE2956FB5660159BF2D82@TYWP286MB2251.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <CAMrTa2F2huyWOkQKocSfZmk8+ruQNw_VNncte8QWy906okrifQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH5C8xVZ9ArRM-4d37S1efqbxLR-NaoXFg4jGBkgOP8GyYhssQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH5C8xVZ9ArRM-4d37S1efqbxLR-NaoXFg4jGBkgOP8GyYhssQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 15:10:30 +0800
Message-ID: <CA+BUBRwmjPBXq+cdSpywd-FdA636hnySE7poBkUcz69gT29KBw@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: =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>
Cc: Jordan LeDoux <jordan.ledoux@gmail.com>, shinji igarashi <shinji.igarashi@gmail.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: chopins.xiao@gmail.com (Szopen Xiao)

1. I only discovered this change when I pulled the master code when
adding FFI::addrValue().
Also, I have submitted this improvement proposal PR on May 20, 2022,
because I didn't push it forward because of my own network issues.
2. The reason why it is rude is because the implementation of the PR
seems to me to be lazy. Simply shielding things in order to implement
an RFC is like completing a KPI.
I don't know if you have any doubts about looking at the lot of code
like FFI::cdef()->new() in the FFI unit test file
In my opinion, this is an open source project, and if there is no good
beautiful solution, it is not an urgent matter, and it can be
postponed



M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis <kocsismate90@gmail.com> =E4=BA=8E2024=E5=B9=B47=E6=
=9C=886=E6=97=A5=E5=91=A8=E5=85=AD 20:36=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>
> I am the author of that "stupid" commit and RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc=
/deprecate_functions_with_overloaded_signatures#fficast_ffinew_and_ffitype)
> which you are referring to. I can understand that you are unhappy about t=
he outcome of the RFC, but I would have happily incorporated your feedback
> into the RFC if you had provided it earlier... Unfortunately, I didn't re=
ceive better suggestions about the FFI related parts, so I went ahead with =
what I
> had in mind.
>
> That being said, I support your RFC. It seems like a better solution than=
 mine. However, I would ask you to change your tone to be less offensive,
> because rudeness is not a welcomed behavior on the mailing list, and by t=
he way, we have the same ultimate goal of improving PHP, even if you are
> unsatisfied with a past decision of mine.
>
> Regards,
> M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocis
>