Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:125251
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 23:34:02 -0400
To: Bilge <bilge@scriptfusion.com>
Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?internals=40lists.php.net?=" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <71F1A1D0-9958-4C86-B8C4-50B502B7560D@getmailspring.com>
In-Reply-To: <792a811e-edf8-4a82-8422-e11cc302a6db@scriptfusion.com>
References: <792a811e-edf8-4a82-8422-e11cc302a6db@scriptfusion.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Default expression
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="66cbf7aa_625558ec_11f93"
From: john@coggeshall.org (John Coggeshall)

--66cbf7aa_625558ec_11f93
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline



On Aug 25 2024, at 6:42 pm, Bilge <bilge@scriptfusion.com> wrote:
> On 25/08/2024 23:31, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
> > It doesn't, unfortunately, persuade me that the behaviour proposed is sensible.
>
> It should. But since it has apparently failed in that regard, I suggest you take me up on my challenge to implement the grammar you want with a patch and you will quickly convince yourself one way or the other. The truth doesn't exist in my head or yours, nor on this mailing list. The truth always lies in the code, which is why RFC authors are strongly encouraged to pursue patches where there is doubt, and similarly, I think counter-proposals on the mailing list should follow suit, otherwise we can find ourselves arguing over nothing.

That's not really how that works -- I mean it's not really up to anyone else to write a PR to implement their version of your RFC just because they disagree with (portions of) the concept.
--66cbf7aa_625558ec_11f93
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<br><br><div class=3D=22gmail=5Fquote=5Fattribution=22>On Aug 25 2024, at=
 6:42 pm, Bilge &lt;bilge=40scriptfusion.com&gt; wrote:</div><blockquote>=
<div class=3D=22moz-cite-prefix=22>On 25/08/2024 23:31, Rowan Tommins =5B=
IMSoP=5D wrote:</div><blockquote><code><pre style=3D=22background-color:r=
gba(0,0,0,0.05);padding:0.2em 1em=22>It doesn't, unfortunately, persuade =
me that the behaviour proposed is sensible.</pre></code></blockquote><div=
>It should. But since it has apparently failed in that regard, I suggest =
you take me up on my challenge to implement the grammar you want with a p=
atch and you will quickly convince yourself one way or the other. The tru=
th doesn't exist in my head or yours, nor on this mailing list. The truth=
 always lies in the code, which is why R=46C authors are strongly encoura=
ged to pursue patches where there is doubt, and similarly, I think counte=
r-proposals on the mailing list should follow suit, otherwise we can find=
 ourselves arguing over nothing.</div></blockquote><br><div>That's not re=
ally how that works -- I mean it's not really up to anyone else to write =
a PR to implement their version of your R=46C just because they disagree =
with (portions of) the concept.</div>
--66cbf7aa_625558ec_11f93--