Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88171 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 38137 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2015 01:37:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Sep 2015 01:37:24 -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 212.27.42.6 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.6 smtp6-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.6] ([212.27.42.6:40163] helo=smtp6-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 20/33-06745-253D4F55 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:37:23 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.232.41.54]) (Authenticated sender: flaupretre@free.fr) by smtp6-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4146982255; Sun, 13 Sep 2015 03:29:45 +0200 (CEST) To: Anatol Belski , 'PHP internals' Cc: "'Ferenc Kovacs ; Anthony Ferrara'" References: <55EE1293.7020404@php.net> <00d101d0ed73$c154b380$43fe1a80$@belski.net> Message-ID: <55F4D347.7080000@php.net> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 03:37:11 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <00d101d0ed73$c154b380$43fe1a80$@belski.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150912-5, 12/09/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] strict-api - Proposing a tool to check and enforce encapsulation From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=) Le 12/09/2015 17:57, Anatol Belski a écrit : >> > Personally I'd be voting yes on the principle. However as the topic brought controversial opinions in the past, IMHO it is better to solve it through an RFC. Especially when the idea expands over zend_string API later, evermore devs and code will be forced by the rules, so it is essential to ensure the majority wants it in first place. And, I wouldn't hurry it into 7.0. OK. I'll write an RFC targeting 7.1. You're right : as long as it was an optional tool, incorporating it without an RFC could be discussed, but deciding to perform travis checks in zstrict mode requires a vote. About the option name, I proposed some in the PR in reply to Ferenc's suggestions. Which one do you prefer ? Regards François