Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79741
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain adamharvey.name designates 209.85.213.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: adam@adamharvey.name
In-Reply-To: <54907C2C.1060607@gmail.com>
References: <8C1EFD82-CFE0-4D01-9231-2A1658B182A6@ajf.me> <CABBJUpfLCjWCgOUneN2O2M7qP2WBf8OgbVrdB-jm+Fn_dDJvVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <548FE4A8.4040909@beccati.com> <6879A58C-458B-459D-97D3-1A73663E1A0E@ajf.me>
 <54900F01.2080309@beccati.com> <54907C2C.1060607@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:47:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CADajX4AA4b4J7r2czJwKHcG1yu2Lu6t5gq3pZ+pZvQ+oEF7S_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP 5.7
From: aharvey@php.net (Adam Harvey)

On 16 December 2014 at 10:38, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've tried to search the ML for such list of RFCs:
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/gc_fn_pointer
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/secure_unserialize (also 5.6 if RMs agree)
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closure_apply
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pack_unpack_64bit_formats (targeting 5.6)
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/intdiv
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/session.user.return-value
>>
>> maybe others too, but I got bored ;)
>
> Didn't I hear "no features"? Most of these are features.

True, but none of them have been accepted for _this_ 5.7. As Andrea
said, her "5.7" RFCs simply used that as a placeholder for what is now
7.0, since that was the master version number at the time. The same is
true of Sara's session return value RFC. The new pack and unpack
formats are in 5.6 already, I believe, so wouldn't be new to 5.7.
Secure unserialise was your RFC, so you tell us. :)

The only one that's pending and actually applies here is the GC
function pointer RFC. As co-proposer, I'd obviously like to see it in
5.7 as well (there's no user impact, it's so trivial it probably
doesn't even qualify for copyright protection, and it's useful for
profilers), but I'm happy to accept that it might be a casualty of the
"no features" rule.

In summary: our current state would allow us to have a "no features"
rule and for it to make sense with what's already been accepted.

Adam