Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79664 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 62371 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2014 18:08:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Dec 2014 18:08:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cmbecker69@gmx.de; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cmbecker69@gmx.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.17.21 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cmbecker69@gmx.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.17.21 mout.gmx.net Received: from [212.227.17.21] ([212.227.17.21:59497] helo=mout.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 90/A6-16076-6B32F845 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:08:55 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([91.67.244.80]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lm2lZ-1XRFBr3Dcn-00ZiDi; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:08:50 +0100 Message-ID: <548F23B2.4020403@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:08:50 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?TWlsb3NsYXYgSMWvbGE=?= , internals@lists.php.net References: <5475A1FA.3030704@gmail.com> <548ED700.5060808@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <548ED700.5060808@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:dCowSIjJwlZyFx3+bKe6fV6rWQnCMKna79e1qtyAldneDqxmmhq 4tl7JzpBU6imA0jns3FZVvCbLDQns0nE7/uhDT1c8xStL7dz4ERkZqZ8MJuzZFm6bKzt0sK Ee7ugs9ttKmdpL/4ZFyxKniwk6++O8gJYPafzAqnbJoP0Tax0dmMu0HoNPcWpB7Ow1Liwnt mvmKv5QrouTsakqz8e5aQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Subject: Re: [VOTE][RFC] Access to aliases definition by reflection From: cmbecker69@gmx.de (Christoph Becker) Miloslav Hůla: > It is two weeks I opened the RFC voting. Even the responses are negative > for now, I would like to remind you to vote. > > Because the amount of votes is low, I hope I didn't do some mistake in > RFC procedure. It seems to me that it's customary to specify the voting period *in advance* (cf. other RFC currently in the voting phase[1]). Not sure, though, if it's a problem to do otherwise. [1] -- Christoph M. Becker