Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85116
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOsHV+uO3nhy9UXotOamJ+0iskVUDhFAYZiZb-RbpCd0OXyYAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOsHV+uYLVuOhva_wpyGouHg5c8+ajko0m8CN1aU2HARcyga3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOsHV+uO3nhy9UXotOamJ+0iskVUDhFAYZiZb-RbpCd0OXyYAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:20:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJWj5+GjxfYeTig7YT4vmXKP09FV9yJc9uFqc81R_vie17mkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: marcio3w@gmail.com
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba975c817094b051177a517
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls
From: simonsimcity@gmail.com (Simon Schick)

--047d7ba975c817094b051177a517
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, all

At first, Thanks for all your work put in here, Marcio. It gave me a new
hint for a possible code-failure.

FYI: PhpStorm lately added an inspector for that. Glad to see that move
after I heard that the RFC won't pass.
https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/WI-14692

Bye,
Simon

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Marcio Almada <marcio.web2@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I had no time to reply all emails since yesterday, but right now we are
> having a voting with 2 "yes" votes vs 16 "no" votes.
>
> I think we all agree that the RFC won't pass and I'm withdrawing the RFC
> for the following reasons:
>
>    1. The sooner we end the voting period the better for the PHP time lin=
e.
>    Since there is no motives to think the voting will flip, the best
> attitude
>    seems to be a withdraw.
>    2. We are having a lot of simultaneous voting right now and some voter=
s
>    care to read all the RFCs. The proposed RFC is long, requires testing
> etc.
>    As it was already rejected, removing it from the list of RFCs in votin=
g
>    phase might be beneficial to the voting process as it reduces the RFC
>    overload we are having because of the feature freeze.
>    3. Looking at the ML, there are many controversial points that were
>    raised, a lot of them since yesterday. Weather they are debatable or
> not,
>    all this controversy during voting phases is a bad thing (look at the
>    scalar type hints drama we had). So it's better to just put this to en=
d
> and
>    move on.
>
> Thanks for the votes, I'll try to reply to the emails anyway whenever
> necessary :)
> PS: I don't intend to propose this RFC again in the future as I already
> have other more important RFCs planned for PHP 7.1
>
> Thanks,
> M=C3=A1rcio
>

--047d7ba975c817094b051177a517--