Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:125568
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 17:36:34 +0100 (BST)
To: Jordan LeDoux <jordan.ledoux@gmail.com>
cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [Pre-RFC Discussion] User Defined Operator Overloads
 (again)
In-Reply-To: <CAMrTa2E2m00gOoGy5FbvkrLwM1AUP3ZmJXHkxh_R2qEszQ=NWA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <844060c9-a0d7-d8e2-40fa-bbd906b6a060@php.net>
References: <CAMrTa2E2m00gOoGy5FbvkrLwM1AUP3ZmJXHkxh_R2qEszQ=NWA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024, Jordan LeDoux wrote:

> I want to discuss what changes to the previous proposal people would 
> be seeking, and why. The most contentious design choice of the 
> previous proposal was undoubtedly the `operator` keyword and the 
> decision to make operator overload implementations distinct from 
> normal magic methods. For some of the voters who voted yes on the 
> previous RFC, this was a "killer feature" of the proposal, while for 
> some of the voters who voted no it was the primary reason they were 
> against the feature.

I am still generally in favour, just like I was on the previous 
iteration. And yes, I would say having the "operator" keyword was a 
"killer feature" for me.

> I hope to start off this discussion productively and work towards 
> improving the previous proposal into something that voters are willing 
> to pass. To do that, I think these are the things that need to be 
> discussed in this thread:
> 
> 1. Should the next version of this RFC use the `operator` keyword, or 
> should that approach be abandoned for something more familiar? Why do 
> you feel that way?

Yes. Making it clear what happens is useful.

> 2. Should the capability to overload comparison operators be provided 
> in the same RFC, or would it be better to separate that into its own 
> RFC? Why do you feel that way?

I'm not too worried, but usually smaller RFCs have a larger chance of 
being accepted.

cheers,
Derick