Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124835
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 09:03:42 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <6decd4f6-e504-47e2-831b-ad5a3bbcf462@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1f1cda9b-a159-4f92-90b0-2ca7a3cec262@heigl.org>
References: 
 <WAN6ETlWt7JfcVoyeYfY_F_eLE6WzQa87F7yi8SHISmyktMYx7YcA6oG5dis3gFeI36VBjSfjGw4AT6psFFDXEUNRrvKRRn4LxfdCxFBccw=@gpb.moe>
 <PH7PR16MB57811CD259E8AED311F017B7DEB82@PH7PR16MB5781.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
 <0FA837CD-60C3-4F4C-9044-C44FB0AF5788@php.net>
 <32BE9C65-F955-44F0-B994-D588D851902E@heigl.org>
 <gnAbiicW1X5OlcgiqC7maaaaTnHsa_Qrfjy0oK04IgSdH-Hx59vqgxf-dDw_LCu24UitU8iHfoXkC79vFwgTLVGnSD5fmf_ZKQnpzfO7PKA=@gpb.moe>
 <1f1cda9b-a159-4f92-90b0-2ca7a3cec262@heigl.org>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Transform exit() from a language construct into a
 standard function
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Thu, Aug 8, 2024, at 9:10 AM, Andreas Heigl wrote:
> Hey Gina, hey all
>
> Am 08.08.24 um 15:44 schrieb Gina P. Banyard:
>> On Wednesday, 7 August 2024 at 17:07, Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org> 
>> wrote:
>>> Stupid question maybe, but are we voting on the RFC or on the patch?
>>>
>>> If the patch does not match what.the RFC proposes, then the patch has 
>>> a problem. That should IMO though not affect voting on an RFC.
>>>
>>> Or am I.missimg something?
>> 
>> In theory, it is the RFC idea.
>> In practice, a lot of the times it is the patch for complex features.
>> 
>> However, it is still within the purview of core developers to veto the 
>> implementation of an RFC.
>> Which could be the case here rather than voting against the RFC outright.
>
> I have no problem that core developers veto a certain implementation of 
> an RFC. I actually expect them to do so.
>
> But the vote should IMO *always and exclusively* be based on the RFC. 
> Not on the implementation. If the voting happens based on the 
> implementation due to the complexity of the features that means that the 
> RFC is not wel written and needs to be improved. Or the implementation 
> is problematic and needs to be vetoed by the core developers.

How exactly would voters veto an implementation if not through the RFC?  That's literally the only formal input mechanism they have, and previous attempts to add others have been soundly rejected.

As a historical note, the partial function application RFC was declined despite there being general consensus that the proposal was quite good and quite desireable.  The issue was that Nikita felt the implementation proposed with it was too fragile, and wasn't sure how to make it less fragile, so he voted No and several others followed suit.  I am fairly confident that if a less-fragile implementation could be found, it would pass handily.

So yes, RFCs have been rejected in the past on "implementation only."

--Larry Garfield