Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84879
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: marcio3w@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuSmd30hOQAnfXjXF7io_aEM4aCnTGigYuF0KZeDarz3bQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOsHV+uYLVuOhva_wpyGouHg5c8+ajko0m8CN1aU2HARcyga3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOsHV+s8WFbAVgQXnSJWHzPTLKQnMZUktO5-5bsBZ8a=AhhHQg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+kxMuSmd30hOQAnfXjXF7io_aEM4aCnTGigYuF0KZeDarz3bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:19:37 -0300
Message-ID: <CAOsHV+sPxmfXWD-Lvg39jPu+dzYR_PMx3EpnYih=wO1eUM_ebw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0115fd1c84f9690511589ef9
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls
From: marcio.web2@gmail.com (Marcio Almada)

--089e0115fd1c84f9690511589ef9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi

2015-03-15 8:33 GMT-03:00 Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>:

> On 15 March 2015 at 06:59, Marcio Almada <marcio.web2@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I received some requests to update the RFC with more information about BC
> > breaks + possible minor adjustments regarding dynamic function calls.
>
>
> Please can you stop abusing the RFC process?
>
> This RFC is attempting to change the language. You received the
> information about the BC breaks weeks ago, they aren't new items that
> you just heard about for the first time today.. You opened the voting
> and then closed it immediately when you realised the vote wasn't going
> to sail through.
>
>
There is no abuse. This is not true, I truly received a suggestion from Bob
Weiland and decided to consider it.
4:3 is not a sign that a voting will pass or not, it's only 7 votes and we
usually get ~52 votes during
a 14 days voting period.


> You're now making changes to the RFC and proposing to re-open voting
> on the same day. How are people meant to have time to read and think
> about the changes?
>
>
It's a **minor** change, as said before. This was the most prudent attitude.


> It's also going to be impossible for people to try the patch out, or
> to measure it for performance hit.
>
>
Performance has never been an issue with this RFC. You probably meant "bc
break" not "performance hit", and the suggested change about dynamic calls
Bob did, if accepted by, is a minor change that will actually reduce the BC
breaks not enlarge it.


> The problem this RFC fixes is not a big enough problem to justify
> making decisions about the language at the last minute, particularly
> as the last version of the RFC I read breaks a whole load of valid
> code.
>
>
A lot of people tell me the opposite. I listened to your opinion many times
and disagreed with it.
Please don't express your disagreement with the RFC by mixing it with false
accusations towards me.
There is a huge gap between both attitudes.

The disagreement is ok, but the false accusations coming from you make me
sad.


> cheers
> Dan
>

Marcio

--089e0115fd1c84f9690511589ef9--