On Friday, 9 August 2024 at 16:03, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > How exactly would voters veto an implementation if not through the RFC? > That's literally the only formal input mechanism they have, and previous > attempts to add others have been soundly rejected. > > As a historical note, the partial function application RFC was declined > despite there being general consensus that the proposal was quite good and > quite desireable. The issue was that Nikita felt the implementation proposed > with it was too fragile, and wasn't sure how to make it less fragile, so he > voted No and several others followed suit. I am fairly confident that if a > less-fragile implementation could be found, it would pass handily. > > So yes, RFCs have been rejected in the past on "implementation only."
The implementation for the attribute syntax using @[] (before it got revoted) would have been vetoed due to implementation issues if the "Treat namespaced names as single token" RFC wouldn't have been accepted. I am very much aware that RFCs have been rejected on implementation, but even if an RFC is accepted it can be vetoed by core developers. And once again, I still do not have any idea why Derick has issues adding support to XDebug. Especially as Tim seemingly managed to do this while being unfamiliar with the codebase. Best regards, Gina P. Banyard
