Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80755
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7ZOcZ1OsLYtckUNA_q1MragqS-XtHh0NGeRP8dCMukTA@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>
	<CAEZPtU7ZOcZ1OsLYtckUNA_q1MragqS-XtHh0NGeRP8dCMukTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:33:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NrAZ29XK+so4uj+h_coNfngunp9ESWEdHXZoH4B04WJxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
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: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 did not mean editing it during vote; I meant that since the RFC does
not actually address this point it isn't technically included in the
vote. This means that if it passes we could alter this behavior if
desired while still being true to the vote.