Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66535
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7faa70ac4ef59d9f7748b17de1d6892d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <435a322ccb14090d3bcf6bf8a110396d@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU56QE=uMFcE+xe2vSzwCH_9KGFs33bJCySWpsx6Ed7k3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpds9XnOZC9gfDs8OHmoe6hTQosqe8qzmTtTX4Xg-JsT+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<8944597477930141639@unknownmsgid>
	<CAEZPtU75+HZMcP+HUAEFGQ3R99g5_PsWJMd4OUkq+__s2CVc9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a0793107537dceb9cc67c616294ce76@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU73==PG7QXT61LRZ0TNFUmtN1B5kBpXP1Cjvg2sZighGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5132FE98.5050201@lerdorf.com>
	<CAEZPtU668P3YTn9g8CZbavb0nz-ui6NDKP0pCEb-7zZE+Q8-VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<513316A1.1050109@lerdorf.com>
	<CAF+90c8G-dQHVgwbKL16kJmHjbJLMXai6bNS7TZjXT1OT+QBAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU5WPhWh_yhcnFvTFdgPKsSez2DikEqrC2qthwHGUUbhzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5138C0FD.1010208@lerdorf.com>
	<CAAyV7nFLoC2nL+Usocwm6f-bTPP24Q7OU6R1gd7pM8qSGLLVTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7faa70ac4ef59d9f7748b17de1d6892d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:01:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nHO7EcxMKaBSuxHuehC7p6a4NOE58zGHkFOvkfvjV4JJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
	Laruence <laruence@php.net>, PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307c9b2e61bf2d04d758a93e
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

--20cf307c9b2e61bf2d04d758a93e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Zeev,

As a rule of thumb, if the language syntax doesn=92t change, it doesn=92t n=
eed
> a 2/3 vote.
>
> How do I know?  I asked for this special majority in the first place.  It
> was designed to protect the language from becoming the kitchen sink of
> programming languages, not from making architectural progress.
>
>
>
> If we need to amend the original voting RFC text so that it=92s clearer =
=96
> let=92s do that.  Right now it=92s slightly ambiguous because it mentions
> =91language syntax=92 as an example, instead of outright saying that it=
=92s about
> that, period.
>

Ambiguous writing is no excuse. People vote based on what is written, not
what was intended. Clarifying after the fact the intentions is not how RFCs
are designed to work. The point is that there's supposed to be clarity in
the text. And considering that the text is pretty clear that any change
affecting the language itself must have 2/3 majority, the question is not
what was intended by that statement, but if adopting ZO+ affects the
language (by interpretation).

So far, from what I've seen, you and Rasmus are the major people backing
the "this is not a language change" camp. In the other camp, there are
several people who have stood up and said that it does appear to be a
language change. I'm not trying to draw lines in the sand, but I'm trying
to point out that we have a disagreement that needs to be resolved.

Hand waving and saying "it's not what I meant by that line" shows nothing
but disrespect for the system and for everyone who participates in it...

So my proposal is to slow down for a minute and not call this RFC accepted
or not until we can come to some consensus as to if it classifies as a
language change or not... Better to clarify for the health of the project
than to plow through and risk causing further strife...

Anthony

--20cf307c9b2e61bf2d04d758a93e--