Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72529
Return-Path: <cryptocompress@googlemail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 74241 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2014 21:51:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 12 Feb 2014 21:51:49 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cryptocompress@googlemail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cryptocompress@googlemail.com; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 209.85.214.49 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cryptocompress@googlemail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.49 mail-bk0-f49.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.214.49] ([209.85.214.49:47434] helo=mail-bk0-f49.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 59/D9-19387-4FCEBF25 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:51:49 -0500
Received: by mail-bk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id v15so2757821bkz.8
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:51:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=aLK5tUje6RJTyDhVx1sqxLSIC18wv67l+a0Nnw5ucVw=;
        b=uu+NsOVHWKIKqMvRJPlhJSjZ956kuzbLIMNWiM8nvG2xZb1Ocobbrpeea9zG/nJT5T
         jmv2Z1k1pX3lDgBv8oUpECis5YT+OI6oxRFVO9NS90+jqNplvjNaRFwG9ropuSaAO3kG
         D04BJTHEAwvzPStBJkbqgCmCoUmLT1OrZY1g/zEi4e4E1YllFivpyj8hUA++02XCZs6P
         h29ZxEAXeYw9zBw0rprP0UN8pVmBZ9IIaRmVUVBA7ACO4vczbPAPeQE7Lgluhwstbd6N
         pBArzhNkH1MAU4PPEGmOmKtr0dQxEwaCrr4JFLEWfV4UN3UqbLKydPcei+x6Wy8XnlJX
         VsWA==
X-Received: by 10.204.248.133 with SMTP id mg5mr34170bkb.123.1392241905031;
        Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:51:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.115] (mnch-5d872b07.pool.mediaWays.net. [93.135.43.7])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id rf10sm81584bkb.3.2014.02.12.13.51.43
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52FBECDC.9010608@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:51:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, 
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAESVnVq3PB+OFXGR+yJ1L2BuX_4+pHyjjvJ8rZXnxexXozyT4A@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGfRu7Ot_sNhvQY1b18Wb-7UB3uihXsSXPVb=cHhEhA0s4ijVQ@mail.gmail.com>	<52F00437.7010903@googlemail.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.10.1402111838010.5374@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>	<52FA71FE.8060808@googlemail.com>	<1392151967.3990.11.camel@guybrush>	<52FA90B3.5040205@googlemail.com>	<1392153156.3990.13.camel@guybrush>	<52FA99C4.5080006@googlemail.com>	<1392155891.3990.15.camel@guybrush>	<52FA9FD3.6000008@googlemail.com>	<CAESVnVrB2OaAuLW5bA7B8S1rJSM371U+x1kEtNbdcaPw_3f85w@mail.gmail.com>	<52FBDC4D.9020302@googlemail.com> <CAESVnVrtCzXhqDQU4PCunfXONoFM=z8+auukcU6t5PeLNFdBQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVrtCzXhqDQU4PCunfXONoFM=z8+auukcU6t5PeLNFdBQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] __debugInfo()
From: cryptocompress@googlemail.com (Crypto Compress)

Am 12.02.2014 21:58, schrieb Sara Golemon:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Crypto Compress
> <cryptocompress@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Solutions to problems created by RFCs are inherent and should not be solved
>> in followup RFCs.
>>
> True, but I disagree that this RFC creates a problem in and of itself.
>   The problem you describe comes from abuse of the feature and creating
> __debugInfo() methods which hide relevant information.  Perhaps a
> matter of semantics, but I think it's an important distinction.
>
>> Why is it impossible to solve [1] and consequent [2] *within* this RFC?
>>
> It's not, however the vote has opened and substantially changing the
> proposal after voting has started should not be done (as it
> invalidates the votes already cast).  If the change is needed, then
> voters should vote "No".  That will put this RFC back to the
> discussion phase, we can add that feature, and reopen voting.
>
> Personally, I think the issues you brought up deserve their own
> independent discussion as there are a number of ways to accomodate the
> issue you're envisioning.
>
> If you feel strongly in that way, then I encourage you to vote No.  If
> others on this list agree, then I encourage them to follow suit.
>
> On the other hand, if those voting, as a majority, feel that this is
> good enough as-is.  Then the vote passes and the feature goes in, and
> we can propose another RFC to refine it.
>
> -Sara

Sounds like an excuse to not think this RFC through to the end. *rush* 
*rush* I would not mind, but this reminds me on "$this in closures".

Issues brought up by this RFC are currently non-existent.

I stick to it: Solutions to problems created by RFCs are inherent and 
should not be solved
in followup RFCs.