Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53943 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 17360 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2011 19:27:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Jul 2011 19:27:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 74.125.83.170 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.83.170 mail-pv0-f170.google.com Received: from [74.125.83.170] ([74.125.83.170:56936] helo=mail-pv0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 55/41-10669-3B1FD1E4 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:27:48 -0400 Received: by pvh10 with SMTP id 10so5160333pvh.29 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:27:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.44.10 with SMTP id a10mr1854816pbm.318.1310585264169; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:27:44 -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 u6sm9372471pbh.32.2011.07.13.12.27.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:27:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E1DF1E9.7080101@lerdorf.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:28:41 -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> <4E1DEFB0.1010208@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 12:23 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> 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. > > Yes, got it, they were rhetorical questions :). However doing it this > way spares us time in the long run. While one or another proposal > could get large and immediate adoption, it makes the whole thing > clearer for the developers not following internals@ daily or to our > users. Right, but these folks that don't follow the discussions are the same 37 people who voted for the Primitives change. How is that helpful? I think a vote should be a big deal. Anything that comes up for a vote should have a healthy discussion and an extremely well-fleshed out RFC which includes both sides of the argument culled from the healthy discussion. And the voting page should heavily encourage people to actually read the RFC in its entirety before voting. -Rasmus