Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71938 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 66229 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2014 19:59:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Feb 2014 19:59:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.115 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.115 smtp115.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.115] ([108.166.43.115:36569] helo=smtp115.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 9D/D5-30967-7125DE25 for ; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 14:59:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp7.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7A6351B8141; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 14:59:17 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp7.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 186FA1B813E; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 14:59:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52ED5214.1090807@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 11:59:16 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Watkins , "internals@lists.php.net" References: <98.E0.35265.E17FBE25@pb1.pair.com> <52ECB893.2020207@sugarcrm.com> <52ECC1B8.9050209@pthreads.org> In-Reply-To: <52ECC1B8.9050209@pthreads.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Automatic Property Initialization From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > The patch, and vote, is only for automatic property initialization, not > methodless constructors. If so, the RFC should be cleaned up to reflect what is being voted. I shouldn't have to apply diffs to RFC to understand what the vote is about, it should say so in the RFC. If something is not a part of it, then drop it from the RFC or put it in "Future developments" section. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227