Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124842
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 23:18:37 +0000
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Transform exit() from a language construct into a standard function
Message-ID: <L9xdSM-bXdhwZ9IfPJgsmNtj9Ze8GYlbUpoVQXERDQWHlLv106IV7M4apRAJ98hjRYgBPsi8F-6K-FfKeRjgkuzuezq5LN4OdSlyEg5-i0U=@gpb.moe>
In-Reply-To: <6decd4f6-e504-47e2-831b-ad5a3bbcf462@app.fastmail.com>
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> <6decd4f6-e504-47e2-831b-ad5a3bbcf462@app.fastmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 96993444:user:proton
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internals@gpb.moe ("Gina P. Banyard")

On Friday, 9 August 2024 at 16:03, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> =
wrote:
> How exactly would voters veto an implementation if not through the RFC? T=
hat's literally the only formal input mechanism they have, and previous att=
empts to add others have been soundly rejected.
>=20
> As a historical note, the partial function application RFC was declined d=
espite there being general consensus that the proposal was quite good and q=
uite 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 h=
e voted No and several others followed suit. I am fairly confident that if =
a less-fragile implementation could be found, it would pass handily.
>=20
> So yes, RFCs have been rejected in the past on "implementation only."

The implementation for the attribute syntax using @[] (before it got revote=
d) would have been vetoed due to implementation issues if the "Treat namesp=
aced names as single token" RFC wouldn't have been accepted.

I am very much aware that RFCs have been rejected on implementation, but ev=
en if an RFC is accepted it can be vetoed by core developers.

And once again, I still do not have any idea why Derick has issues adding s=
upport to XDebug.
Especially as Tim seemingly managed to do this while being unfamiliar with =
the codebase.

Best regards,

Gina P. Banyard