Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124262
Message-ID: <eea94c2d-1201-4a30-9e69-41da7c2af2d2@scriptfusion.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:58:19 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static class
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>,
 Stephen Reay <php-lists@koalephant.com>, Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>
Cc: Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com>, ayesh@php.watch,
 php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <eb3f59cc-3ed8-461a-a3a4-f6ba10ed31e1@scriptfusion.com>
 <88D83E92-94BE-4548-B398-8F5C74765FFD@gmail.com>
 <882BD9E0-42E9-4C84-A144-7C1DFC4CE5EB@newclarity.net>
 <DB280533-7FBE-41CD-B841-9BB163A75280@koalephant.com>
 <9d3e9063-aecf-4c56-a17d-782e7a60fed2@bastelstu.be>
 <d075222b-0c71-4ec6-8a2d-fdaba8a727c2@scriptfusion.com>
 <e587554b-f24c-49fe-8658-3c15b15cc615@bastelstu.be>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <e587554b-f24c-49fe-8658-3c15b15cc615@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: bilge@scriptfusion.com (Bilge)

On 30/06/2024 16:10, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> I strongly favor an opinionated RFC where the RFC author did their 
> research and makes it clear why the proposal is the right choice and 
> backs this up by proper arguments. Of course this doesn't mean that 
> the RFC author should not listen to the list discussion, but the high 
> level details should be clear right from the beginning. As of now the 
> RFC still has some open questions regarding "core functionality" and 
> even intents to leave them as a secondary vote.
>
> In other words, too many cooks spoil the broth. 
I won't pretend I had the knowledge and experience to tackle this alone. 
I stood on the shoulders of giants to make this PR possible, and even 
before PR, I didn't have a clear view when I first casually strolled 
into internals. Talking to the experts here helped me find the words I 
was searching for and ensure edge cases were considered. That said, I 
hope you don't think me soft, this was not a design by committee; the 
RFC is a product of my own work and the decisions now made are a result 
of my own convictions, bolstered but not coerced by the input of others. 
Moreover, now the RFC is finished at version 1.3, I am very proud of 
what it has become and stand by every implementation decision made 
pertaining to specific semantics; I am convinced they are correct and 
would not benefit from any further modification, with the benefit of 
experience writing the implementation behind me. I hope you, too, are 
equally convinced if you would now humble me with another read.

Kind regards,
Bilge