Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:86310
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4Np4N9gEcCLJ34dnCRnXwtVEyD5Xu6fpjXpdzpdfteEaFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFMT4Np4N9gEcCLJ34dnCRnXwtVEyD5Xu6fpjXpdzpdfteEaFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:50:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg3XxLJsoimZ+vir2b93q776Pe5ze72Et0HRZ4-7DVjfzxVuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01536e8c9ca40b0516721e74
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve "void" class name
From: petercowburn@gmail.com (Peter Cowburn)

--089e01536e8c9ca40b0516721e74
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 19 May 2015 at 17:16, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:

> I strongly disagree with this action. These types required an RFC; why
> should this be different? Also note that neither of the reserve
> typename RFC were unanimous.
>
> Furthermore, we are past the RFC stage. We are *supposed to already
> have an alpha* by now and we are proposing new changes?. Please stick
> to our established rules and release timetables as much as possible,
> thank you.
>

To be fair, this change does not change a single byte of code. It's just
adding another type to the "reserved" list (to be documented) in the
manual. Unless I'm mistaken.

If the above really is the case, then why not stick up an RFC and vote.?

P.S. I'm not 100% clear on the outcome of all of these votes on what is
"reserved" and whether any of those give warnings/etc. in PHP 7; maybe
someone could give me an executive summary off-list? :)


>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--089e01536e8c9ca40b0516721e74--