On 13 August 2014 10:56, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > On 13 Aug 2014, at 10:52, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > >>> I could see > >>> where people would use it - there are reasons to, even if they are > poor in > >>> choice to do so. > >> > >> How, exactly, could there ever be a use for having multiple default: > sections and ignoring all but one? This “feature” is completely and utterly > useless, and I’ll eat my hat if anyone intentionally relied on it. > > > > The question is more about how and when do we fix issues found while > > working on the specs? That one is pretty easy and the impact for users > > will be rather small, if at all. > > > > However, I tend to think that we should simply target php7 for any of > > these fixes. No need of endless arguing and keeps everyone happy. > > I’d rather we fix these in 5.7, which I’m a proponent of and would come > out sooner. This way we don’t have nonsenses like this specified for three > years. >
Since the spec is targeting 5.6 [citation needed], this behaviour will need to be in there regardless of in what version it gets fixed. > -- > Andrea Faulds > http://ajf.me/ > > > My thoughts on the topic? I think we're in danger of letting "process" get in our way here. It's a bug fix which IMHO should even be thrown into 5.6 (this is a bug fix!). Going through the RFC process, being forced to wait for 5.7 or 7, extended discussions on the list... it all just seems unnecessary. But, that's just the opinion of a docs guy. :-) > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
