Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130373 X-Original-To: internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: internals@lists.php.net Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (php-smtp4.php.net [45.112.84.5]) by lists.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BEF21A00BC for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2026 19:04:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=php.net; s=mail; t=1773687883; bh=OUHU5HkBxUNKksM/M4eosO7xwI5JFCEVzqtEevSqxfo=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=fIh53hW6p6eiCuACl8XRWKdlD+9nwSR+ftuQ8fXnGmPzumMugpmjExQRQSPjLNaZO 9e0SUQdUcxgqx7oFfwfCKK9mUTLZtv0BsoSp5qP946GuPazwCcP7M906sVY597yExi Mqp+1ckS0WLIFZVBQ97bS2TiNtAdJMyJBAHvm5swWdi8uL3gy0L9z44dd6H20hCcTp ossaCBG+Oo+6ae5D+hNhLDF6T/EOFy6mAYBt+KQ8m+3D5DpGvDdFUU6foQ8jwogvB7 wnYWKZTGtUxUJEiZsKuQoXH1qG6Dc9PRycS57fkdrs2FMpSNOSmvEQzn8f3dfQRbVs YkylKU1B/BeNg== Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA211801E3 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2026 19:04:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DMARC_MISSING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from supercat.cmpct.info (supercat.cmpct.info [71.19.146.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2026 19:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpclient.apple (fctnnbsc38w-142-134-101-31.dhcp-dynamic.fibreop.nb.bellaliant.net [142.134.101.31]) by supercat.cmpct.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97B0242981; Mon, 16 Mar 2026 19:04:34 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Precedence: list list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: List-Id: x-ms-reactions: disallow Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.400.21\)) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Display Function Arguments in Errors In-Reply-To: <3236a343-82c8-4245-861a-01a768aa9c7b@app.fastmail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:04:22 -0300 Cc: php internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <6B4E67DB-471C-4A93-AF5C-3E4C386D22B1@cmpct.info> References: <939CFA28-A6FF-433F-85A0-B83345CEF4A6@cmpct.info> <6c498ed3-3cb0-47a5-a64e-4ad202eba141@bastelstu.be> <6EE06F93-E9F2-455E-B530-B2BF6FB4B648@cmpct.info> <3236a343-82c8-4245-861a-01a768aa9c7b@app.fastmail.com> To: Larry Garfield X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.400.21) From: calvin@cmpct.info (Calvin Buckley) On Mar 12, 2026, at 2:54=E2=80=AFPM, Larry Garfield = wrote: >=20 > On Thu, Mar 12, 2026, at 10:53 AM, Calvin Buckley wrote: >> On Mar 11, 2026, at 3:35=E2=80=AFPM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus = wrote: >=20 >>> 3. >>>=20 >>> For the voting options: You need to define a tie-breaker for the = secondary votes. >>=20 >> I might be a little dense here; I see tie-breakers mentioned in >> feature-proposals, but I don't see any guidance on how to include = them >> in an RFC. The other RFCs I've been skimming don't seem to mention = them >> either. >=20 > Just put something like "in case of a tie, the default will be 1" = above that voting widget. (Or 0 if you want to go that way.) Same for = the other one. >=20 > Few RFCs have secondary votes, so you won't see it very often. And = they don't always mention a tie breaker, even though they arguably = should. >=20 > --Larry Garfield Sorry for the late response, I've added tiebreakers to the vote section.=