Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58386
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kris.craig@gmail.com designates 10.180.99.100 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.99.100;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSwupRh2MYFZjsvLTmxQdWp_q=0Jkn2TyokLp8LOJ3L6Vw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG=uTXEfTBqX7n0_zfGjB_txQFKtZXF4MOo6RHHPSRPerGeKZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSy14SKeVHATHp65HyGnf1wpM=2Gie9K0BSXgvdi4REzXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06AC3152F5D@il-ex2.zend.net>
	<CAKOpQSxqFniCYu-86HJ2-no-z8C+fpj_h0mDh6db5K4QHxpiVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL0xaBGM6xyOKcV3Z6FijEn6WDnFX1jJCbM=qLvrGmtX1_1J7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSyNmhHyXGcvW975J_0+UH+f_jx+O8E-w8BHPT3wAHZZMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL0xaBHkqEpNG=MtkL=G=HLtWstx-BeVoLHRpen7aENHNR6scg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSxSZ-nhM_Z8nn6M3oA_xwWX2HtTj9yy5Nw1JN8q9zZtPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<43409D28-75AC-4E9C-A0EA-66FC1DB9FAE7@gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSz0G9zDYRWjYDJwJDs7FfHieG_UnbctiPTs+r5EwdHuRw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJWj5+GCMs7yFp48m8g19GmZYHR9X_EDsSnM4-io5v0jbZ7Qfg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSwd1_mvWZ3mYCAutH5ELKNOkAXtmzcZC-xpXbOfai0UAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJWj5+HZnG4enAUU41i=uCfVozD=sjd02Sv7c2WWQsSMA2CXEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSwJFYyoKEBQ=Bf80O3QCS==1FGp5CDpvBmqO6nH2oQUbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<80e16e4c67bbf04a676b73798682b07e.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
	<CAKOpQSwupRh2MYFZjsvLTmxQdWp_q=0Jkn2TyokLp8LOJ3L6Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:04:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSxNXbZyKEZVDxA13DHxFgLzVvQx2rhdgRh9-3Ka0zQSkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Lynch <ceo@l-i-e.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428e5cc56d4804ba25b8e7
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d04428e5cc56d4804ba25b8e7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Bah and after all that, I went and misspelled *Symantec.  *grumbles*

--Kris


On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:

> @Richard Yeah that sounds about right actually.  That's probably exactly
> the reasoning behind the current model being what it is.
>
> However, it seems to me that, especially in complex proposals, the "should
> we?" and the "how?" distinction becomes more and more difficult to avoid.
> If everyone supports an idea, but there are a hundred different viable ways
> to do it, having a hundred different competing proposals would be a
> nightmare IMHO (especially if fifty of them passed and are directly
> conflicting with one another lol).
>
> That's why I'm thinking, if you split them into separate questions but
> keep them in the same overall proposal, you can wind up with the best of
> both worlds.  The "primary" question is whether or not this should be done
> to begin with; if it fails, then everything else is moot.  If it passes, on
> the other hand, then the plurality on any secondary question(s) would allow
> us to simultaneously and efficiently decide *how* it should be
> implemented without having to create separate proposals or cause the
> support vote to become split (since your vote(s) to any secondary questions
> would have no bearing on your primary question vote).
>
> For example, let's time-travel ten years into the future.  I wanted to
> modify PHP 7.3's configure script to use a botnet I control to increase
> PHP's processing power (as of PHP 7, PHP can exploit rootkits but it can't
> control entire botnets).  If enabled, the RFC argues, I'd be able to
> increase my spam output tenfold and still have enough victim machines to
> carry out a DoS attack against FaceGoo+ (yep, they merged) and silence my
> many enemies.  But then, there a serious problem surrounding this proposal
> that someone raises:  Should there be a switch to activate this or should
> it simply be configure's default behavior?  Also, should this include a
> switch that instructs PHP to install a rootkit on vulnerable systems
> automatically, and if so, should we integrate that with the main switch,
> make it a separate switch, or just make it the default behavior as well?
>
> Naturally, this would best be handled as a single RFC.  The "primary"
> question would be something along the lines of, "Should PHP's built-in
> trojan management capabilities be expanded to allow for control of large
> botnets (yes/no)?"
>
> Then, there would be some secondary questions; for each one, the prefix
> "If implemented...." is assumed:  "Should the the switch be enabled by
> default (yes/no)," "How should rootkit install toggling be handled (option
> on main switch/separate switch/just make it default)," and, "Should we
> commit another series of arsons at Semantic in order to slow the
> development of new security patches that might hinder our supreme
> objective?"
>
>
> Heh sorry, my examples tend to get a bit psychotic after a long day at
> work.  But you have the gist of it, at least.  ;)
>
> --Kris
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Richard Lynch <ceo@l-i-e.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, February 29, 2012 6:55 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
>> > If not, I'll go ahead and draft an RFC for these proposed amendments
>> > sometime today or tomorrow when I get a spare moment.  If anyone has
>> > any
>> > thoughts on this, please share them!  Thanks!
>>
>> This is not an official answer. I don't have time to dig out references.
>>
>> I believe the PHP community settled on the idea of having a single
>> simple pass / fail vote without the complexity of branches / options.
>>
>> It was simply to hard to tally the votes once you open up the options,
>> because your support base ends up being split.
>>
>> NOTE: See current  US Republican Primaries for examples of how complex
>> it gets. :-)
>>
>> There is nothing to stop one from drafting multiple proposals, with
>> alternative options, and each one getting vote upon, other than the
>> time available to the person drafting the proposals.
>>
>> And, of course, a reasonable expectation that with TOO many proposals
>> of the same idea, the community would quickly turn into robo-voting,
>> both for and against, as that's just human nature.
>>
>> Again, I say, I don't claim to speak for the whole community.  This is
>> merely my interpretation from my faulty memory of past events.
>>
>> --
>> brain cancer update:
>> http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor
>> Donate:
>>
>> https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FS9NLTNEEKWBE
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>>
>

--f46d04428e5cc56d4804ba25b8e7--