On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 10:18 AM Richard Miles <richard@miles.systems> wrote: > > Hi Levi, > > First, were you able to discuss this with authors of other generic > proposals or implementations? Derick Rethans and Arnaud Le Blanc both > have experience there. > > > This proposal has nothing to do with generics. > Derick Rethans responded in this thread, and I've specifically addressed his > current (generic?) branch. > It is a community misconception that typed arrays have anything to do with > Generics and also > has been discussed in this thread in detail. > Is gatekeeping you asking me to repeat what was discussed back to you > specifically so you can grant me privileges? I digress and I'll concede.
Please calm down. I am not gatekeeping, as I don't even have the know-how to grant you the wiki karma. > Second, do you have any work towards an implementation? Technically, > an implementation is not required for RFCs. However, for this feature, > > > I did start on the implementation and have linked the branch above, but > stopped after > Rob Landers’ suggestion: > > In my honest opinion, before we can even have this type of conversation, we > need to have an RFC about the syntax (there may already be one, I haven’t > checked — and internet is spotty where I currently am). The pattern matching > RFC was proposed as though it would be written one way, people have thrown > out ideas of different syntax, but I don’t think there is an “official” > syntax. A good starting point may be to simply propose an RFC about syntax so > future RFCs can be consistent. > > — Rob > > > > Also, directly from the how-to page on the mailing list > "https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto"; > > "Email internals@lists.php.net to measure reaction to your intended proposal. > State who would implement the feature, or whether the proposal is only a > “concept”. > Proceed with an RFC if feedback is not negative or if a detailed RFC will > clarify the proposal. “ > > So, unless I'm mistaken, I think we’re going about this correctly.? I’m not > sure whoes 'voice to follow’ since > Rob and Levi have differing opinions on paths forward. I personally would > like the syntactic approval before > I implement the full code. The complete implementation details would need its > own discussion. Syntax is part of the implementation, but it's not the hard part from a technical perspective. The hard part is actually implementing the semantics and behavior, and plumbing it through all the parts of the engine. It does not matter what the "skin" of the thing looks like, if the mechanics of the things simply don't work. Also, I don't mean to say you need a complete implementation, either. More of a "proof of concept" which means that core issues have been identified, and are either fixed or outlined so other people are aware of them. > I can guarantee any RFC without an implementation is dead-on-arrival. > > > You're not the first person to have a guarantee in this thread… :) No, but I authored and co-authored many RFCs over many years. I was trying to be helpful. I'll state that I don't think your RFC has any chance of success. The syntax, the semantics, the discussion so far, especially that typed arrays have nothing to do with generics... I think its chance of success is quite low. I messaged you to try and be helpful despite my own opinions on such things, and tried to point you to things that I thought would be helpful if you wish to pursue this: 1. A proper discussion with authors of other proposals, including ones related to generics, is prudent. Even if you believe they aren't related, I'm sure they've learned things about the engine that would be helpful to you in your implementation. 2. A proposal for a significant feature without the bones of an implementation simply will not pass. Since the RFC process was created, I don't think it's ever happened. There have been cases where the implementation changed from RFC to what landed (Dmitry completely reimplemented from scratch one of my RFCs that passed, I think it was return types), but a basic implementation is needed to fully understand the problems and challenges of the implementation. Lastly, I'll note that I responded to you off-list. I don't know why you brought a private conversation back to the list without discussing it with me. There wasn't anything rude or inappropriate, and the rest of the list certainly could have gone without this conversation. We should respect the time of everyone participating on the list.
