Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53938
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.83.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4E1DE5A8.90505@lerdorf.com>
References: <CACwt+Jc=yGjr_YQ-i_gDs5DyUhGajTHxa5hJ1g4qfEWDyhvBaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU6G3W--vncmu4qJ5V8fERkad+6O5S-n+g+jgcyNJNeubg@mail.gmail.com>
	<slrnj1p32e.51n.dsp@experimentalworks.net>
	<CADNQb0WnVkNqVKFi4G4Ly__6eD921MkA3NLGHoNE4esHs6BXnA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU50D_2xtpncxmtygz3TjOPK0mLNy5g1iGNO0L_GDazkRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E1DDBB4.3070301@php.net>
	<CAEZPtU5TPEo8YdMFi1X3JFXw86mqAX32Li-QniKHqc9ymphdww@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E1DE5A8.90505@lerdorf.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:50:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6sz2UfxMnNfRHoEXFoJaYcaZu1Um4Cv-XkOh6jq=eWOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf <systems@php.net>, Hannes Magnusson <hannes.magnusson@gmail.com>, 
	David Soria Parra <dsp@php.net>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Make primitive type names reserved words (Was: Re:
 [PHP-DEV] [RFC] 5.4 features for vote (long))
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
> On 07/13/2011 11:17 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <systems@php.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Maybe read my reply in this exact thread?
>>
>> I said that due the BC problem, discovered or discussed later, forces
>> us to reject this RFC.
>
> What do you mean discovered or discussed later? Anybody who bothered to
> read the RFC should have seen the BC problem. It's not like it was
> hiding in small letters somewhere.

We have some issues here. One is that I can't find the RFC for this
proposal. Many of these votes are made out of the 5.4 todos instead of
having clear and obvious (as you wish) RFCs. That was a mistake. But
that's a new thing, we are learning.

However, while making these primitives keywords sounded like a good
and easy step, not being able to use them inside a namespace is a not
acceptable BC break. It was also not obvious that NS won't be
supported.

> And most of the other votes are unanimous which make them rather
> pointless as well.

Are you saying that widely approved thing are pointless or we could
have foreseen the results for each of them? Better to have a vote and
got a massive support than nothing and sit in the middle of nowhere
forever.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org