Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85260 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6101 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2015 02:21:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Mar 2015 02:21:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:51418] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8A/85-25408-C148B055 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:21:17 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D374B0150; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 03:19:53 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: "'Dan Ackroyd'" Cc: "'PHP internals'" References: <885a29db28bc96b2d3cd2ac96907e39f@mail.gmail.com> <077401d06268$2b597c30$820c7490$@php.net> <07c201d062b0$5d766230$18632690$@php.net> In-Reply-To: <07c201d062b0$5d766230$18632690$@php.net> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 03:21:07 +0100 Message-ID: <07cc01d062b4$863797d0$92a6c770$@php.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIqkhECzNWHmquFHEtotR9EeyhR/QG9QlIPAT0YZWsBYBQkN5xNbBAA Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150319-1, 19/03/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Question/comment about the Array to String conversion RFC From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=) May I also add that it is not the first time people raise concerns about = RFCs when vote starts. On different occasions, it was clear that most = had not read the RFC before the vote was announced. I even have two RFCs = which were planned for 7.0 and won't be in because I had to stop the = vote and restart a discussion. When we have short timelines, as for 7.0, = it's a real problem because restarting a discussion easily adds one = month to the approval process. Actually, I don't know if, in this case, = I shouldn't reply that the discussion is over and that it's just too = late to wake up. Regards Fran=C3=A7ois