Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53932 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 96340 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2011 17:54:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Jul 2011 17:54:03 -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 209.85.210.170 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.210.170 mail-iy0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.210.170] ([209.85.210.170:61846] helo=mail-iy0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C0/90-24992-9BBDD1E4 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:54:02 -0400 Received: by iym1 with SMTP id 1so6379834iym.29 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.119.70 with SMTP id y6mr1168168ibq.70.1310579638516; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.200.5] (c-50-131-46-20.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.131.46.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v16sm9022402ibe.17.2011.07.13.10.53.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Rasmus Lerdorf Message-ID: <4E1DDBB4.3070301@php.net> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:53:56 -0700 Organization: PHP Infrastructure team User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110627 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: Hannes Magnusson , David Soria Parra , internals@lists.php.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Make primitive type names reserved words (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] 5.4 features for vote (long)) From: systems@php.net (Rasmus Lerdorf) On 07/13/2011 10:30 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: > I disagree and this exact issue shows that the voting and controlling > is actually working well, very well. As it is covered by the two > recently adopted RFCs. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that it is working well. This particular change is clearly not feasible for 5.4, yet the votes are 37-19 for doing it right now. -Rasmus