Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53940 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 13128 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2011 19:18:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Jul 2011 19:18:23 -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 209.85.214.170 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.170 mail-iw0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.214.170] ([209.85.214.170:63863] helo=mail-iw0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 71/60-10669-D7FED1E4 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:18:23 -0400 Received: by iwn36 with SMTP id 36so6501149iwn.29 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.108.129 with SMTP id h1mr1300708icp.331.1310584695403; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.200.3] (c-50-131-46-20.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.131.46.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y3sm4219882iba.21.2011.07.13.12.18.14 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E1DEFB0.1010208@lerdorf.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:19:12 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110516 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <4E1DDBB4.3070301@php.net> <4E1DE5A8.90505@lerdorf.com> 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: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) On 07/13/2011 11:50 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: > 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. I'm saying that many of these in the past were handled by a, "Hey guys, any objections to adding E_STRICT to E_ALL in 5.4?" email which would get a couple of, "go for it" replies and no objections, followed by the change being committed. To me the voting is only needed when we have trouble reaching a quick consensus and not for every little thing. -Rasmus