Hi internals,
Voting has started on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/cachediterable_straw_poll and ends in a week on June 12, 2021
(the voting period is shorter because this is a poll, not an RFC, and the feature freeze is soon)
Previously, https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions passed 37-1,
but nobody has created any RFCs using namespaces that I know of.
As a result, I'm uncertain if voters would prefer namespaces over the global namespace in practice for extensions that already have functions,
and even if namespaces are preferred, there may be multiple candidates for namespaces.
This poll was created to gather information on
- How voters interpret the https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions RFC for existing namespaces,
as it makes recommendations but also permits the global namespace for new functionality consistent with existing functionality - the way I expect voters to interpret it may be different from how it is interpreted in practice.
iterable_all() seemed to have been preferred over iterable\all in the previous straw poll.
I would expect https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions to shift that preference towards namespaces, but there have been no votes on an RFC using namespaces yet.
Additionally, I didn't notice this earlier, but the RFC recommended (but didn't mandate) that "Namespace names should follow CamelCase." - so I'm not sure if iterable\ or Iterable\ makes the most sense to others.
2. To see if there's interest in that functionality before spending too much time on it. E.g. for CachedIterable, https://externals.io/message/113136 had little feedback
but would enable implementing a standard library for iterables that was much wider in scope (e.g. iterable\flip(), iterable\reversed(), iterable\take(), etc)
(Sorry - It is difficult to tell if feedback from a few people on a mailing list is representative of the majority of voters and there have been no RFCs for me to look at as a precedent).
Previous discussion can be found at https://externals.io/message/114687
Thanks,
Tyson