Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71906
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 217.114.215.10 cause and error)
To: Pascal Chevrel <pascal.chevrel@free.fr>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <BF.14.54292.9A62CE25@pb1.pair.com>
References: <98.E0.35265.E17FBE25@pb1.pair.com>
	 <1391203805.2941.173.camel@guybrush>  <BF.14.54292.9A62CE25@pb1.pair.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 00:13:34 +0100
Message-ID: <1391210014.2941.224.camel@guybrush>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Automatic Property Initialization
From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=)

Hi Pascal,

On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 23:41 +0100, Pascal Chevrel wrote:
> Out of curiosity I read both the Voting and Release Process RFCs and 
> couldn't find any mention of a rule stating that all votes had to be 
> approved before the first alpha, if I overlooked it, please correct me. 
> Also, If you look at the wikipedia definition of an alpha in, I believe 
> that it is still time to add features:

No, that rule wasn't written down, but the release process came to live
out of consequence of us pushing things in quite late in the game and I
fear we run exactly in the same direction, again.

> Also, isn't it to the Release Manager role to make such decisions?
[...]
> The document linked is:
> https://wiki.php.net/todo/php56#timetable
[...]
> The RFC was created before the first alpha, the voting phase is now and 
> if the result of the vote is a yes, then it has until mid-March to be 
> included. At least that's how I read it.

Yes, there is no strict rule, but still we're not talking about a small
change here but a language change (a small language change, but still)
and I merely wish that this fact is considered by voters. Ideally the
proposer would have added options for 5.6 and the following version.


(Actually I hadn't reviewed the proposal before and from a quick look at
it there seems to be a design flaw around inheritance with code like
this:
   class Base { public $p; function __construct($this->p = 42); }
   Class E extends Base { function __construct($this->p = 23) { parent::__construct(); }
   new E;
leading to probably unexpected results ... also
   class C { public function m($foo->prop){}}
becomes valid syntax and leads to (fatal) runtime errors, this might
even be true for non-class function declarations ... but I haven't
really checked, I assume voters will)

johannes