Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128557
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 15:58:18 +0200
To: Vinicius Dias <carlosv775@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Create "split" as an alias to "explode"
In-Reply-To: <CAEwRQKaNRM8XCnrp+SaRqGLNjo8smcAhizWcLipoLufNunYZOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEwRQKYEsbHwp5LcLZy7WSMT9eHLcEPjjc42S4kCMfc_EJuaxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1ac93a41e6cb4909cb5d50ad03b39ed3@bastelstu.be>
 <CAEwRQKaNRM8XCnrp+SaRqGLNjo8smcAhizWcLipoLufNunYZOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5d87acfe2242d56b0453c149da830fd8@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

Apologies for the late response. I've now taken another look.

Am 2025-08-19 16:50, schrieb Vinicius Dias:
>> The template specifically contains an RFC impact section that is 
>> missing from your RFC:
> 
> I added that and the RFC Impact sections. I added "None" to the
> existing extensions and SAPIs. Let me know if that should be like that
> or if I should just omit those sections.

Having the sections with an explicit “None” makes sense to me.

> Let me know if that's enough or if I'm still missing something.
> Thank you for the thorough feedback.

While I still don't agree with the RFC, I believe it now fairly 
represents the discussion and I don't think anything important is 
missing from the RFC.

I'm just taking a bit of an issue with the “Dislike for aliases” 
section: Just because folks (me included) are against adding more 
aliases, does not imply that they are in favor of removing existing 
aliases. I consider both adding new aliases as well as removing aliases 
to be disruptive and believe that the best action is “doing nothing” and 
accepting this as another case of a historical decision that might not 
have been made today.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus