Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83189
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <84223f8590aa140b2e1c251d00c34560@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nHHBxSPemoF0Gj+ridov99WFLMh-+nxDwBY5ikJwV0OUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<a25095424ba7a260f9a149a5711afa61@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nEC9eCf1J0O_jBX3GdFrmPbf+ekmNRbjA2u9eWZ1F6e7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<84223f8590aa140b2e1c251d00c34560@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:24:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nF80GyHhKagfGktLHC88zgSEWaO2YpbDEU+h1w1j39WMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations v0.5)
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Zeev,

>> Then that's great! But let's find that out by voting rather than guessing,
>> and
>> rather than politicking. Let's let two competing proposals go head to
>> head.
>
> I'd rather find out by first discussing the alternative, rather than just
> moving ahead to a revote - especially a revote that was placed on a
> shortened timeline - given the importance of this RFC.  But as you clearly
> disagree, it's your call to make and I respect that.

With all due respect, we've been discussing this for literally 5 years
since Ilia's commit into 5.4 was reverted:
http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=127454069030304&w=2

I've personally gone through several iterations of it including
associated discussion.

For this proposal (v0.5), I think the time for fundamental behavior
discussion is over. Some disagree, sure. But we've never required 100%
consensus before, why start now? I am asking for discussion on the
finer points. And indeed some minor modifications have been made. And
I'm open to making them. Hence why I specifically asked in the
announcement on list that if people disagree they should explain why
(**from a technical level**).

I personally don't see how a new proposal can fit better than this
one, hence why I am moving forward with it. Show me, in writing, in an
RFC, how your proposal is better, and I'll gladly withdraw (or delay)
this proposal. But short of that, I don't think it's fair to say
"first discussing the alternative".

This topic has been discussed to death in circles over the past
several years. You're involved now. Awesome. Show me why your proposal
is better rather than trying to just tell me to stop or pause. Show
the result of the discussion.

Thanks

Anthony