Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77767 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 41334 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2014 20:59:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Oct 2014 20:59:59 -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 198.187.29.245 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 198.187.29.245 imap11-3.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [198.187.29.245] ([198.187.29.245:54627] helo=imap11-3.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 30/60-39134-D4E0F245 for ; Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:59:58 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EADC88800F1; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 16:59:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap11.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap11.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id EeFVr4A58DBM; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 16:59:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [172.20.10.4] (dab-yat1-h-13-7.dab.02.net [82.132.214.167]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 33D6D8800DA; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 16:59:51 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 20:04:02 +0100 Cc: internals@lists.php.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: To: Leigh X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Loop... or... From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 3 Oct 2014, at 08:39, Leigh wrote: > If there are no outstanding issues raised by tonight (UTC), I will > open this RFC up to a vote. >=20 > I'd like to remind everyone that we're discussing and voting on the > concept here rather than the implementation. I'm personally not happy > with "or", but if there is enough support during voting then I am > happy to actively work on finding the best solution (and maybe a > second round of voting when we have all of the possibilities lined > up), if there is no support then I wont spend time on it. Huh, why is the keyword choice not part of the vote? So, if people vote = for it with =91or=92, you could change it to something completely = different? I don=92t think that=92s normal procedure. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/