On 22/05/2020 18:30, Mark Randall wrote:
> Should this vote fail, \PHP effectively changes from a reserved
> namespace, to a dead namespace.
I don't see how you get from the text of this RFC to that conclusion.
There are a number of reasons why people who vote against this RFC might
vote for an alternative, such as:
* They would prefer *more* classes to be in \PHP
* They would prefer fewer classes, but not none
* They would prefer a similar number of classes, but a different definition
* They would prefer a guideline with "should" or "may" rather than "must"
* They like the definition, but would prefer a plan to rename existing
classes that meet it, for consistency (I don't have a vote, but I might
well vote No on this basis)
* They would prefer a concrete proposal on how to structure the
namespace, which this RFC explicitly is not
* They might even prefer your RFC, which is still marked "Under
It is possible that "officially declare that we won't use the \PHP
namespace" would get a majority, but that's not what this vote asks.
Rowan Tommins (nÃ© Collins)