Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:44809 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 91830 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2009 00:43:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Jul 2009 00:43:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 209.85.222.198 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.222.198 mail-pz0-f198.google.com Received: from [209.85.222.198] ([209.85.222.198:35175] helo=mail-pz0-f198.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 45/FA-37453-3CBE35A4 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:43:47 -0400 Received: by pzk36 with SMTP id 36so5207196pzk.29 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.58.20 with SMTP id g20mr10316129waa.130.1247013824554; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?216.145.54.15? (socks3.corp.yahoo.com [216.145.54.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l37sm943213waf.40.2009.07.07.17.43.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A53EBBE.4070801@lerdorf.com> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:43:42 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ilia Alshanetsky CC: Paul Biggar , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FC?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ter?= , PHP internals References: <2D0F5226-EBCA-4B45-BF01-8ED1C643976C@prohost.org> <1247006344.3760.164.camel@goldfinger.johannes.nop> <4A53D6E8.7080705@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Type hinting/casting request for vote From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) That doesn't really change the timing, especially since you said you have been using it for 2 years. Why pick the week after the 5.3 release to propose it for 5.3? It makes very little sense to me, and I think consensus is building that we aren't going to add this to 5.3. I think half the people who voted +1 didn't realize you were seriously thinking of pushing it into 5.3 -Rasmus Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > Rasmus, > > Well, 5.3 has been in feature lock for quite some time, its not like its > been a week or two since we went from "features in" phase to > "stabilization" phase. > > > On 7-Jul-09, at 7:14 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >> Paul Biggar wrote: >>> - the RFC process has been wilfully ignored (despite multiple requests) >> >> For me it is pretty hard to take a major feature for 5.3 RFC seriously >> when it comes a week after we finally get 5.3 out the door. >> >> -Rasmus >