Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81114 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 57240 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2015 08:21:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jan 2015 08:21:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@beccati.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@beccati.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain beccati.com designates 176.9.114.167 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@beccati.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 176.9.114.167 spritz.beccati.com Received: from [176.9.114.167] ([176.9.114.167:53259] helo=mail.beccati.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 92/D2-36889-1A7A4C45 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 03:21:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 24587 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2015 08:21:49 -0000 Received: from home.beccati.com (HELO ?192.168.1.202?) (88.149.176.119) by mail.beccati.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2015 08:21:49 -0000 Message-ID: <54C4A793.1040902@beccati.com> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:21:39 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stanislav Malyshev , PHP Internals References: <54C4A44F.2030902@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54C4A44F.2030902@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Vote results for default ctors RFC From: php@beccati.com (Matteo Beccati) Hi Stas, On 25/01/2015 09:07, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > I am a bit disappointed by the result, as I think it would be a good > change, but I am much more disappointed by the fact that that 20 people > voted against it and not even half of them - I would say maybe 1/5 of > them - chose to participate in discussion even minimally and explain > what is wrong with it in their opinion. I understand when everybody > agrees there's no need of the flood of +1s, vote is enough, but > disagreement by its nature is more diverse. I think not bothering to > discuss and then just voting "no" with no explanation is not how the > healthy RFC process should be working. I was supposed to send an explanation after voting, but I forgot. Sorry about that. I initially was going to vote "yes" as I kind of liked the concept. What made me change my mind was the implementation decision. I fully understand the reasons behind a conservative approach, but I just didn't like the "magic" (doesn't exist, but it's ok to call it). I would have voted yes for the approach #1 as it looked more consistent, and #2 seemed to be slightly worse than what we have now. My 2c. Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/