Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75851 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 95108 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2014 13:56:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Jul 2014 13:56:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.207 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.207 imap2-2.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.207] ([192.64.116.207:56763] helo=imap2-2.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B3/B1-21666-77D6EC35 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:56:08 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25C78C0080; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:56:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap2.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap2.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id NpSsUSFgiXx7; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:56:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.0.15] (unknown [90.210.122.167]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A7D48C007B; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:56:02 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) In-Reply-To: <53CE66D4.2060103@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:56:00 +0100 Cc: internals@lists.php.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <84603C6F-F984-4F73-892A-4416391E4769@ajf.me> <53CE66D4.2060103@gmail.com> To: Rowan Collins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 22 Jul 2014, at 14:27, Rowan Collins wrote: > the RFC would be much better with a different structure. Currently, = it's laid out in what you might call an "adversarial" style - arguments = for one side, then arguments for the other; this doesn't lend itself = well to summarising all the previous discussions, because it just reads = as a discussion of its own. That=92s actually what I=92ve been thinking recently. Having a case for = PHP 6 and a case for PHP 7 doesn=92t really make much sense anyway, as = all a case for PHP 6 needs to do is rebut the arguments for PHP 7, for = the most part. Maybe if I have some time I=92ll try to restructure the RFC. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/