Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors

This is only part of a thread. view whole thread
  106965
September 12, 2019 14:52 Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 15:44, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote:
> > The RFC process was never, ever meant to handle fundamental changes to the > language.
The only appropriate response to this is "lolwat?". You keep making up rules...that don't exist. You can't expect people to suddenly stop using RFCs to change the language just because you say so. Please stop this behaviour. It's really not appropriate. sincerely Dan Ack
  106967
September 12, 2019 14:58 arvids.godjuks@gmail.com (Arvids Godjuks)
чт, 12 сент. 2019 г. в 16:53, Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com>:

> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 15:44, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote: > > > > The RFC process was never, ever meant to handle fundamental changes to > the > > language. > > The only appropriate response to this is "lolwat?". > > You keep making up rules...that don't exist. You can't expect people > to suddenly stop using RFCs to change the language just because you > say so. > > Please stop this behaviour. It's really not appropriate. > > sincerely > Dan > Ack > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > Agree and support,
but I mostly want to convey this to everyone: For once, let's not knee-jerk post reply. Let's take a day to stew on this, formulate the though and express it. I will do the same, cause I really want to knee-jerk here, but we know how that ended in recent months and issues it caused. So let's take the opportunity to voice our opinions in an orderly manner since Zeev basically opened this can of worms and I honestly do not see this going well. -- Arvīds Godjuks +371 26 851 664 arvids.godjuks@gmail.com Skype: psihius Telegram: @psihius https://t.me/psihius
  106970
September 12, 2019 15:02 oludonsexy@gmail.com (Olumide Samson)
You first me on that reply Dan, I guess I should just say "the naysayers
are back", I can see their footprint all around.

The RFC is Request for Comment on any changes, is there an explicit or
implicit mention about what kind of proposed changes can be made?

Mr/Mrs Zeev are you for PHP or against it?
I know you are one of the authors of Zend Engine, but please follow the
rules and don't make rules simply because something is going the way you
don't want it to.

That's why there's this called "vote".

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 3:52 PM Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 15:44, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote: > > > > The RFC process was never, ever meant to handle fundamental changes to > the > > language. > > The only appropriate response to this is "lolwat?". > > You keep making up rules...that don't exist. You can't expect people > to suddenly stop using RFCs to change the language just because you > say so. > > Please stop this behaviour. It's really not appropriate. > > sincerely > Dan > Ack > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
  106974
September 12, 2019 15:27 zeev@php.net ("Zeev Suraski")
> -----Original Message----- > From: Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 6:03 PM > To: Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> > Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>; PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors > > The RFC is Request for Comment on any changes, is there an explicit or implicit > mention about what kind of proposed changes can be made?
While the Voting RFC was probably one of my worst creations - because it's was so laconic and lacking (although it still probably did more good for PHP than bad) - yes - there's a strong implication as to what it's meant to deal with and what it isn't meant to deal with. Here's what the Voting RFC said: "Given that changes to languages (as opposed to changes to apps or even frameworks) are for the most part irreversible" I understand this isn't written black-on-white that you can't deprecate a fundamental language behavior. But it's clear that "having to win a 2/3 vote" isn't quite the definition of "irreversible". The idea behind the 2/3 requirement (a number that I came up with) was to ensure that the motivation to undo that addition/change will likely remain very low in the years following the vote on the RFC. Why? Because once it's in - it's in. It cannot be taken out. It's irreversible. So no, a 2/3 vote does not get us the mandate to deprecate a fundamental language behavior. It's basically a reasonably high bar to add something to the language - given that we know that once we add it, we cannot take it away. Nothing more, nothing less. Zeev