Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56252 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 63811 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2011 20:12:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Nov 2011 20:12:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.113 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.113 smtp113.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.113] ([67.192.241.113:33024] helo=smtp113.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 87/51-01205-D103CBE4 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:12:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp21.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8F68D240342; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:12:10 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp21.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 0D319240326; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:12:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4EBC3019.4090709@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:12:09 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: PHP Internals References: <4EBADCE4.9030702@sugarcrm.com> <4EBAF5D8.40608@sugarcrm.com> <4EBB5847.50400@lerdorf.com> <4EBBFE8B.40308@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] who can vote From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! >> Sure, but this is another great example. If you wrote an RFC that >> basically said, "Let's rewrite the engine" I bet it would get a lot of We already have such proposal. It's called unicode support. Everybody talks about how great it would be to have one. If we had a vote, I bet there would be zero votes against in from the community. But we all know by now it's not that easy and if there was a patch to do it this patch would with 99% probability fail. Even if it were perfect, it would take very long time to ensure that, and very deep and passionate discussion. That's because this thing is much harder and more complex than it appears on the first sight, until you really start to think about all the consequences. Having such matters decided on simple vote is madness. > That's another myth spread by the opponents of making our process > open. All RFCs proposed has been proposed with patches, implemented by > the proposers, with or without the help of other core developers. The problem is not having patches, the problem is having the patches that won't cause trouble in other parts of PHP. For example - and please understand I'm not trying to single out anybody, it's just and example - IIRC for spl loader patch right now there's a problem of it trying to load non-existing files if non-existing class is checked. We'd have to deal with this problem. It also has something called "include path" which works totally different from PHP's include path. We'd have to deal with that too, and with users asking us why we call two different things "include path" and then ranting all over the internet how PHP is an inconsistent mess. Also I see that get_filename() modifies its arguments, while getPath() passes its argument directly to it. Not sure it's the best idea. Also, not sure if it's an issue or not, but it looks like the included files will be run in the scope of whichever code initiated the autoloader. Which is not the case with PHP-based loaders. I know everybody writes good code which would never spill anything to including scope but... :) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227