Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80749
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4NoA_OY9W_KNR0z0RE4xKxy_rCJNY+=59EYzQdT=kAO42w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFMT4NqCF6sbpqhg-icd4K_zfOu-RMW=qy6sL-T2YuLH3NQSRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXZGTmcGPsOOsarDvtZQnam6iOtpSddnk-aprQEhF_ZXcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1CD8C39C-8830-4F95-812D-34DA83A7782F@welsh.co.nz>
	<CAGa2bXY5NytNtN5bRVd1GX1sU=jRKx2B1+FbboJtpGWebMoU7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7VfYnPSJRqV0x0q2h2ajoQirF20Sy26iYrxwBMfpT_AQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXbPwaaCVoHjLfS0x3_wqa5tC69kASa8iWBnTFEtnwkgqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMT4NoA_OY9W_KNR0z0RE4xKxy_rCJNY+=59EYzQdT=kAO42w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 23:55:55 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7ZOcZ1OsLYtckUNA_q1MragqS-XtHh0NGeRP8dCMukTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Cc: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, Simon J Welsh <simon@welsh.co.nz>, 
	internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] Return Types
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:
>> Hi Pierre and Levi,
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:
>>> > Hi Simon and Levi,
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Simon J Welsh <simon@welsh.co.nz>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> The tests have it after the use():
>>> >>
>>> >> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/997/files#diff-e306c6e99612ba59b00a4fe435b287e5R9
>>> >>
>>> >> This was discussed in depth a couple of times in the related threads.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for the information. It should be in the RFC. IMHO.
>>> > I feels natural to have type spec after function parameter definition
>>> > rather than
>>> > after "use".
>>>
>>> Please do not change the RFC during votes phase, or re start it.
>>>
>>> If many of the voters feel like they were voted on something different
>>> of what is being discussed here, it may be a good thing to restart it.
>>> However I think we all understood it as it is described in this
>>> thread. Let update it after the votes or for the docs.
>>
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>> Let's update the RFC after vote.
>
> According to the previous discussion the return type goes after the
> use statement, and this is how it is implemented. There has not been
> an unintentional mistake here.
>
> If you disagree with that decision I am open to discussing it again.
> Since it isn't actually mentioned in the RFC (which was an oversight,
> I apologize) I'm not sure we'd have to revote on it. Anyone else have
> an opinion on this?

Addint/editing it means a re vote.

I do not think it is necessary at is pretty clear, or I think it is.
At the very least, let wait after the vote ended, to see if complains
will be raised.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org