Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41395
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 64.99.136.150 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <023601c937b1$2d1045b0$3ffc1f3e@foxbox>
To: "Pierre Joye" <pierre.php@gmail.com>,
	"Lukas Kahwe Smith" <mls@pooteeweet.org>
Cc: "Sebastian Bergmann" <sb@sebastian-bergmann.de>,
	<internals@lists.php.net>
References: <49048EC1.9060908@chiaraquartet.net> <ge2bk6$hkc$1@ger.gmane.org> <E6DC9B6E-83FE-48F5-83C6-8667971A2801@pooteeweet.org> <fe05d1540810261359w72ff74fdv785a1eba281eafaa@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:24:02 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespace separator and whining
From: steph@php.net ("Steph Fox")

Hi Pierre,

> Excuse me but while the idea to have an online meeting was great,
> sending a mail to ask to attend an online meeting 24 hours before and
> on a Friday was not a wised choice. I would have participated too if
> it was during this week or the next weekend.

You were actually online throughout it, and were notified that it was 
happening at the start. In fact you were the first person to blog the 
outcome of the meeting.

> I do agree with Sebastian about not allowing functions and constants
> (from a principle point of view, as I barely see any example out there
> of NS and procedural code).

Apart from PEAR?

> I'd to say that I do not care about which
> symbol is used.
>
> @Greg and Steph: Private discussions are bad. Or are you trying to say
> that this list can't be used as a discussion platform (even heated)?
> If we like to have a developer only list, let do it, but keep things
> in the public area, that's the only way to keep our decision process
> transparent for everyone.

@Pierre: we didn't have a 'private discussion'. That this irc meeting was 
going to take place was noted on internals@ over a week ago following my 
'consultation excercise', which incidentally practically all the core devs 
complained about due to the noise it generated. Only one internals dev 
requested to be notified of the details when the information was made 
public. Only one internals dev has complained that he wasn't invited, from 
which it would seem that the rest really didn't want to go through it all 
again, for one reason or another. It should also be noted that more were 
invited than actually attended, yourself included.

The need for a dev-only discussion will I think become apparent if you look 
at the detailed investigative reports Greg gave.

- Steph