Op vr 20 feb 2026 om 12:35 schreef Tim Düsterhus <[email protected]>: > > Hi > > Am 2026-02-14 15:00, schrieb Mirco Babin: > > This argument has convinced me. And writing it down helps clear my > > mind. > > Great, thank you! > > >> All that said: If you are willing prepare an initial RFC Draft based > >> on > >> the official RFC template (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/template) and to > >> go > >> through the process of officially discussion the RFC, I'm happy to do > >> the “polishing” work as an official coauthor / mentor to make sure > >> there > >> are no missing bits or other mistakes. I'm also willing to get someone > >> to do the implementation (potentially I'm doing it myself). > >> > >> Do we have a deal? :-) > > > > I have prepared a RFC at > > https://gist.github.com/MircoBabin/aaa574297c8d1baa879f19c99ce28e93 > > > > Are you still willing to carry out the implementation? If so: > > Yes, I'm still willing to help out with the implementation (or to find > someone to to the implementation if the RFC passes). > > > - Should I mention you as coauthor? > > For the “only warn on new at runtime” variant, I personally don't agree > with the proposal and thus don't want to officially co-author it. But > I'm nevertheless willing to help with the implementation and with > feedback to ensure that the RFC is in the best possible shape > policy-wise. As previously mentioned, I believe it should consistently > warn at compile-time and not make a difference between “using new” and > “calling __construct() manually”. > > > - In the first chapter, what wording should "Implementation" be? > > - What wording should "Patches and Tests" be? > > It's okay to leave that out for now in both cases. An implementation is > not necessary to vote on the RFC and it can be filled in later.
Thank you for helping out. > The next step would be registering a Wiki account at > https://wiki.php.net/rfc?do=register and then request RFC karma, so you > can create a proper RFC page and “officially” start the discussion. Ok, I have done that. > Having the page will also make the RFC text much more convenient to read > compared to the Gist. > > I've taken a quick look at the text and “format-wise” it seems to > contain all the necessary information. Great work! FYI: I used the following procedure for previewing: - Goto https://www.dokuwiki.org/changes (or some other page that allows editing) - Choose for the pencil: edit this page - Paste in the gist - Preview Kind regards, Mirco Babin
