Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:86089
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.17.21 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <55420B2F.6020509@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:59:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
 Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Nikita Popov <nikic@php.net>, 
 Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
References: <55415E10.7040908@gmx.de> <CAF+90c988_+ja7D-Wv5wy7ZiDmF3jui8+ChrU6x4+sh5Zh5TZw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c988_+ja7D-Wv5wy7ZiDmF3jui8+ChrU6x4+sh5Zh5TZw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Reserve even more type hints RFC
From: cmbecker69@gmx.de (Christoph Becker)

Nikita Popov wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> 
>> I've noticed that the "Reserve Even More Types in PHP 7" RFC[1] has been
>> moved to "Process and Policy" with the comment "needs no impl".
> 
> I've moved the RFC based on Sara's mail in the voting thread [1]. Quoting:
> 
>> There's no language in the RFC about
>> actually throwing errors or other code-breaking behavior.  Therefore,
>> even should all of them pass, it does *NOT* mean that your code using
>> these names suddenly stops working on PHP7.  It means that you have
>> been warned that using the names of intrinsics is a bad idea, and that
>> the language reserves the /right/ to make doing so an error at some
>> point in the future.
> 
> I also know that at least some of the votes were cast under the assumption
> that this is just a "documentation" reservation, as opposed to throwing
> errors.

Thanks for the explanation.  I must have missed (or simply forgotten
about) this mail.  The voters have probably more carefully followed the
discussion, so enforcing the reservation by convention has been part of
the decision.

> [1]: http://markmail.org/message/3zehjdlvuhv5sosq

-- 
Christoph M. Becker