Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72003
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.220.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <A7.9D.30967.5827EE25@pb1.pair.com>
References: <98.E0.35265.E17FBE25@pb1.pair.com>
	<CAESVnVrRQO=fQyLBKjomn00DK3fivFYT6qBQOGb1yxdQmBur=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CF.64.30967.E7E4DE25@pb1.pair.com>
	<CAESVnVp0EaUvADdEqYG5FjQmn-Qifjycm0LaeG0L_YJBLa-fMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<52ED66CC.8070304@ajf.me>
	<CAESVnVouz_H-0nHpWaWUeRpnujCf3Yz5MhEmZD_kY7JoevkM3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<52ED9D74.8080807@ajf.me>
	<CAESVnVpQXhDDh7iscC56jSTtfOrXj5acZ3AZFxAk+LSaz2V1xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<69.14.30967.1710EE25@pb1.pair.com>
	<CAESVnVr4KCk0+uxkEy9g1R48dW9VbsGY0+AWeVD4j=x8Wy5BXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<A7.9D.30967.5827EE25@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 09:23:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CAESVnVqJoDh9Cs0Z1tUZqxofVMbhaUXhO-3qgfpnxUZMBBXZkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gordon Oheim <gooh@php.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Automatic Property Initialization
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Gordon Oheim <gooh@php.net> wrote:
> Just that I never accused you of any of these things. I usually don't even
> comment on other RFCs. I apologize again if it's coming across any different
> (although it annoys me that I have to say that for the third time now). So
> all I can ask from you is to take it as I tell you now: it's *not* personal.
> It's not my intention to question your commitment or blaming you of
> sabotaging PHP or whatever you think I wrote there. Because I didn't. I have
> no interest in drama. It doesn't even have anything to do with what is or
> isn't in HHVM, really. I told you what I am concerned about and why I prefer
> my proposal over Ctor Promotion. Believe it or not, but there is no hidden
> agenda or politics. I don't have time for that.
>
I don't doubt that we're both tired of repeating ourselves.

I did hear your concerns and why you prefer your proposal.  As I said,
I may even agree with you about your syntax being better in terms of
accomplishing the stated goal.  I haven't committed to a "yes" vote at
this point because I'm not convinced it's needed.  Within the scope of
your syntax, it saves a single line per property at the cost of making
the prototype longer.  To me, that's not actually enough to justify
it, especially if it means diverging the syntax trees.

That's the sum total of my objection.  It's not an attempt to block the feature.

-Sara