Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83312
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: <CAL=_i_nEpEhuahRcekoH=dBm9BQd2HTFGfqPjduNzGa+wpTuoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL=_i_mdb1GvYFZr1ZEqvCgZ3+um-ZYuz5xAFZuwjwBcXsEk3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E5F77D.9090406@fischer.name>
	<CA+9eiLurXVtk0eKAuKF8uUb=6SVqZtatXSvZ9bnvW1gnb0hz4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E6F48A.9040906@fischer.name>
	<CAPwsocEiTSOM0EtFR52KNFCZNYG4dDguuyvNpk5kMKaRDwOZCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL=_i_m4gUy081cMM4Aw5St4OYxVfAXK0hDZ_fSR-ChZc_UUow@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E72FE7.9030803@googlemail.com>
	<54E7312D.9090404@googlemail.com>
	<CAL=_i_m44Nbabgx56p_Lo9w5hCW-=MW3rvyh_2-B-bV7e3NkBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E73E70.5020403@googlemail.com>
	<CAF+90c9gB67JfYG1M42YWSRLgENx3ixfghztJBN4okBRvyTCWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E74ADF.9040608@googlemail.com>
	<CAL=_i_nEpEhuahRcekoH=dBm9BQd2HTFGfqPjduNzGa+wpTuoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 07:45:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5fmbXuJHXdSO-iAdwfW8m+tLZUxkLwhRyYN+g+VmNC5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Cc: Crypto Compress <cryptocompress@googlemail.com>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Expectations
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote:
>> However I think it is pre
> mature to vote on as there was (sorry) not explicit discussions about
> it.
>
> I haven't heard that from anyone else, the RFC is plenty old.
>
>> A couple of things are unclear. See the numerous questions in this thread.
>> I also do not like other things.
>
> These don't seem like valid reasons to hold off progress.
>
>> zend.assertions:
>
> Having a more general debug setting might be a good idea, but is outside of
> the scope of this RFC.

So it is fine to have one setting doing the exact same thing? Sorry, I
disagree. We know we need that in other areas. Like other recent RFCs,
we have solved them bottom-up. This one is no different.

>> assert.exceptions:
>
> Delay isn't necessary, exceptions are not used by default, and there is
> plenty of time for Engine Exceptions to make necessary changes.

So basically what you say is that this RFC, relying on things we
should clarify and define clearly so it will be consistent across the
engine and language, are not relevant to this RFC? I totally disagree
and hence my point that this RFC needs more (public) discussions and
things that are prerequisites for this RFC should be designed,
discussed and implemented before this RFC.

I will certainly be the only one voting no at this stage, or maybe not
even voting because I simply feel like you discussed that already no
matter where and came to this RFC and say take it or leave it. I am
not a fan of this approach or we can rename "Request For Comments" to
"Request to Accept" as any kind of comments or feedback is simply not
taken into accounts.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org