Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124328
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Improve language coherence for the behaviour of
 offsets and containers
To: internals@lists.php.net, "Gina P. Banyard" <internals@gpb.moe>
References: <mhbeurk_htxbQxzIEs98wQoR8Xczf-L7L8aCAIVhATD7wQiEUJwpAYxYS-llyac0pN761mnQJfpVQcDUoXAgasaWpWylpt6LE-I2oM4zrbk=@gpb.moe>
 <EE-aMte3i-_DTmSrqDgoaRPATmjLUcLt-k31baT8lqqCsrzIy0UsOyKo9rlBs51gWKUK7e7X3VYDuJmxhd6bxOGe52k8ITQgoN0_AE0RnoY=@gpb.moe>
Message-ID: <668DEE87.4060809@adviesenzo.nl>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 04:14:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.0
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EE-aMte3i-_DTmSrqDgoaRPATmjLUcLt-k31baT8lqqCsrzIy0UsOyKo9rlBs51gWKUK7e7X3VYDuJmxhd6bxOGe52k8ITQgoN0_AE0RnoY=@gpb.moe>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------010600000201030304090903"
From: php-internals_nospam@adviesenzo.nl (Juliette Reinders Folmer)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010600000201030304090903
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10-7-2024 1:39, Gina P. Banyard wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 July 2024 at 14:52, Gina P. Banyard <internals@gpb.moe> wrote:
> Moreover, I know the traffic on the list has been pretty high, but I do intend to have this RFC up for voting for inclusion in PHP 8.4, and I'm not exactly sure how I am meant to interpret the lack of responses.
>

Gina, just as a heads-up: I really want to spend some time to study this 
RFC (and some others) in detail and am struggling to keep up (yes, the 
traffic has been pretty high over the last month or so).

If I'm honest, I'd say that posting a complex and long RFC like this 
with only a little more than a month left before feature freeze may be a 
little late in the cycle.
I fear there is not enough time for detailed discussion and that it will 
either fail due to the lateness in the cycle or pass because people 
trust you, rather than based on the merit of the RFC.

As an aside - not directly related to this RFC - I'm noticing more and 
more RFCs which need correction or a follow-up RFC after the vote has 
taken place. In my perception, this was much rarer in previous cycles. 
I'm not going to hypothesize why this is, but it does make me wonder ...

Smile,
Juliette


--------------010600000201030304090903
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10-7-2024 1:39, Gina P. Banyard
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:EE-aMte3i-_DTmSrqDgoaRPATmjLUcLt-k31baT8lqqCsrzIy0UsOyKo9rlBs51gWKUK7e7X3VYDuJmxhd6bxOGe52k8ITQgoN0_AE0RnoY=@gpb.moe"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">On Thursday, 4 July 2024 at 14:52, Gina P. Banyard <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:internals@gpb.moe">&lt;internals@gpb.moe&gt;</a> wrote:
</pre>
      <pre wrap="">Moreover, I know the traffic on the list has been pretty high, but I do intend to have this RFC up for voting for inclusion in PHP 8.4, and I'm not exactly sure how I am meant to interpret the lack of responses.

</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Gina, just as a heads-up: I really want to spend some time to study
    this RFC (and some others) in detail and am struggling to keep up
    (yes, the traffic has been pretty high over the last month or so).<br>
    <br>
    If I'm honest, I'd say that posting a complex and long RFC like this
    with only a little more than a month left before feature freeze may
    be a little late in the cycle.<br>
    I fear there is not enough time for detailed discussion and that it
    will either fail due to the lateness in the cycle or pass because
    people trust you, rather than based on the merit of the RFC.<br>
    <br>
    As an aside - not directly related to this RFC - I'm noticing more
    and more RFCs which need correction or a follow-up RFC after the
    vote has taken place. In my perception, this was much rarer in
    previous cycles. I'm not going to hypothesize why this is, but it
    does make me wonder ...<br>
    <br>
    Smile,<br>
    Juliette<br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------010600000201030304090903--