Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72006 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 4265 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2014 17:30:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Feb 2014 17:30:43 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 92.75.15.92 dslb-092-075-015-092.pools.arcor-ip.net Received: from [92.75.15.92] ([92.75.15.92:23898] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 1B/AF-30967-2C08EE25 for ; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 12:30:42 -0500 Message-ID: <1B.AF.30967.2C08EE25@pb1.pair.com> To: internals@lists.php.net Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 18:30:37 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <98.E0.35265.E17FBE25@pb1.pair.com> <52ED66CC.8070304@ajf.me> <52ED9D74.8080807@ajf.me> <69.14.30967.1710EE25@pb1.pair.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 92.75.15.92 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Automatic Property Initialization From: gooh@php.net (Gordon Oheim) On 02.02.2014 18:23, Sara Golemon wrote: > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Gordon Oheim 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 > Fair enough. -Gordon