Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79519 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 72233 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2014 23:43:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Dec 2014 23:43:59 -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 192.64.116.216 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.216 imap10-3.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.216] ([192.64.116.216:42286] helo=imap10-3.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D9/C9-09154-D3987845 for ; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 18:43:57 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1552400D7; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 18:43:54 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap10.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap10.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id lwGh4X30jBvG; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 18:43:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from oa-res-26-240.wireless.abdn.ac.uk (oa-res-26-240.wireless.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.26.240]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E19E02400AA; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 18:43:53 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:43:51 +0000 Cc: PHP internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <95A581EE-A062-4926-BE44-BCA87FC9B356@fb.com> <0A19AD11-E5B4-4C4E-A69A-C7D6F2E2244A@ajf.me> To: Josh Watzman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullsafe calls From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) Hi! > On 9 Dec 2014, at 23:31, Josh Watzman wrote: >=20 >> 2) It=92d probably be better if you made a language specification = patch before, not after, the RFC is accepted. Having to specify the = syntax and semantics formally can make what the operator does clearer = and help to spot issues. Plus, going forward, the language specification = should not be an afterthought. >=20 > Definitely not an afterthought. I just want to get through all of the = "not clear if it's going to work" bits -- first, the feasibility of the = actual implementation, then whether the RFC got good reception on = internals. I'll make sure to have a spec diff before the RFC goes up for = a vote -- does that sound good? Yes, that sounds good, thanks! -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/