Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81117
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <54C4A793.1040902@beccati.com>
References: <54C4A44F.2030902@gmail.com> <54C4A793.1040902@beccati.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:31:56 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXa9bVKNzOT2FwoS0R7y4+nbwVMUhvDBAXCr1iBZyVr7kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com>
Cc: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b604582c76da4050d76b31d
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Vote results for default ctors RFC
From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)

--047d7b604582c76da4050d76b31d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi all,

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com> wrote:

> 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.


I liked the idea.
PHP is dynamic language and user should be able to enjoy the "magic", IMHO.

I also would like to know the reason why vote against a RFC. Without
feedback,
there is no improvement.

Comment plugin to the wiki, perhaps?

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net

--047d7b604582c76da4050d76b31d--