Hi internals!
Voting has now started on the flexible heredoc and nowdoc syntaxes RFC1.
Voting will be open for 2 weeks (until November 15th).
Thanks,
Tom
Hi!
Voting has now started on the flexible heredoc and nowdoc syntaxes RFC[1].
Voting will be open for 2 weeks (until November 15th).
Something I am missing here. RFC is talking about removing indents from
heredoc text, but the vote says "Allow for the closing marker to be
indented?" and does not mention that indenting closing marker also
changes how the rest of the heredoc is parsed. Is this still the case?
--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
Hi!
Voting has now started on the flexible heredoc and nowdoc syntaxes RFC[1].
Voting will be open for 2 weeks (until November 15th).
Something I am missing here. RFC is talking about removing indents from
heredoc text, but the vote says "Allow for the closing marker to be
indented?" and does not mention that indenting closing marker also
changes how the rest of the heredoc is parsed. Is this still the case?
I'm going to have to assume so and vote No.
Chris
PS. RFC writers: please take care when writing specs.
Stanislav Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com wrote:
Something I am missing here. RFC is talking about removing indents from
heredoc text, but the vote says "Allow for the closing marker to be
indented?" and does not mention that indenting closing marker also
changes how the rest of the heredoc is parsed. Is this still the case?
From the body of the RFC:
"To enable for the closing marker to be indented, ... The indentation
of the closing marker dictates the amount of whitespace to strip from
each line within the heredoc/nowdoc"
That's about 3 lines of text into the RFC. Presumably the RFC didn't
think the whole concept being voted on needed to be repeated in the
voting option. Perhaps it should have been but:
Christopher Jones wrote:
I'm going to have to assume so and vote No.
It is better to ask questions during the discussion phase of an RFC,
but if you do have a question during the voting period, you're still
allowed to ask rather than voting based on assumptions.
PS. RFC writers: please take care when writing specs.
Please don't use passive aggressive 'helpful hints' like this. For example:
"RFC voters - please read the RFC during the RFC period and ask
questions then. ;-)" is an irritating way of writing this.
A way of writing it that is more conducive to a productive discussion is:
I think this is covered in the RFC text. Does the line I picked out
above, give a clear description for what that vote is for?
cheers
Dan
Ack
Hi!
From the body of the RFC:
"To enable for the closing marker to be indented, ... The indentation
of the closing marker dictates the amount of whitespace to strip from
each line within the heredoc/nowdoc"
Yes, that's what the RFC says. But the voting question only mentions
indenting the marker. I'd prefer voting options were clear and I didn't
have to second-guess the intent. It could be "Allow indenting the marker
and stripping the whitespace?" and all would be clear.
"RFC voters - please read the RFC during the RFC period and ask
questions then. ;-)" is an irritating way of writing this.
I've read the RFC, that is exactly why I was asking - because the voting
question did not match the text of the RFC, omitting rather serious side
effect.
--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
Hi!
From the body of the RFC:
"To enable for the closing marker to be indented, ... The indentation
of the closing marker dictates the amount of whitespace to strip from
each line within the heredoc/nowdoc"Yes, that's what the RFC says. But the voting question only mentions
indenting the marker. I'd prefer voting options were clear and I didn't
have to second-guess the intent. It could be "Allow indenting the
marker
and stripping the whitespace?" and all would be clear.
I would add that this is particularly important on an RFC with two or more votes. On most RFCs, the voting question is implied to be "accept the change/feature as described above", but as soon as you have two votes, it's important to be clear which parts of the proposal are covered by each vote.
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]