Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68870
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5224F0FB.9080506@sugarcrm.com>
References: <52243BA6.5040905@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAF+90c9SDjXC1EjHPDaQjEhvcrtt_=_28r18O43NSLrX9tW4og@mail.gmail.com>
	<5224F0FB.9080506@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 23:55:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c-1PH2m=muEUq1S+GE4QK4+DYhvcU3JEEgHLHYzTyu5qA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149d0aeff5fe704e56da0b3
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Skipping parameters take 2
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--089e0149d0aeff5fe704e56da0b3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>>> I must say it seems a little strange for me given current stream of
>>> "because we can" syntax additions proposed to reject something that has
>>> been asked for by real people for years just because sometime in the
>>> future we might or might not have something that may do a similar thing
>>> in different way.
>>
>> I would not agree with your argument that it should be introduced
because it
>> is requested by real people for years and it is simple to add. Isn't that
>> pretty much the same as "because we can"?
>
> No, it is pretty much the opposite. It is "because people need it".

lolwut, you're kidding right? So you listed a bunch of StackOverflow
questions asking for this and from this concluded that this is a feature
"people need" whereas the RFCs by ircmaxell/me (whichever you mean) are not
needed and are proposed just "because we can" and are not needed by "real
people"? Would you like RFC's to include detailed chat logs, Twitter
mentions and Reddit conversations as proof that features are wanted by
"real people"?

Nikita

--089e0149d0aeff5fe704e56da0b3--