I am satisfied, the possibility of group declarations, but the that lack:
<?php
use App\RestException\ // name "RestException", not imported to
current namespace :(
{
Gone,
NotFound,
BadRequest
};
?>
Unfortunately have to write so:
<?php
use App\RestException;
use App\RestException\
{
Gone,
NotFound,
BadRequest
};
?>
It looks ugly and very strange.
My proposition, the imported end name, if end of without slash.
Like this:
<?php
use App\RestException
{
Gone,
NotFound,
BadRequest
};
echo RestException::class; // App\RestException
?>
2015-03-11 11:08 GMT+02:00 Patrick ALLAERT <patrickalla...@php.net>:
> Le mar. 10 mars 2015 à 19:29, Marcio Almada <marcio.w...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2015-03-10 11:39 GMT-03:00 Patrick ALLAERT <patrickalla...@php.net>:
>>
>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Le ven. 6 mars 2015 à 00:44, Marcio Almada <marcio.w...@gmail.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>> You are right about this. I'll setup a yes/no vote + a vote to decide
>>>> between E_WARNING (for consistency), E_DEPRECATED or E_STRICT. For me
>>>> this
>>>> is just a detail but maybe it's very important to others, so better to
>>>> let
>>>> each voter decide upon it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In case of language changes, shouldn't the 2/3 of majority be required at
>>> any levels?
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think it's possible. What would happen if the yes/no vote passes
>> but the secondary vote doesn't reach 2/3 for some option? This would be a
>> weird situation.
>>
>
> Pretty simple actually: it would simply not pass because it wouldn't gather
> enough support.
>
> Discuss the options, see what gather the most support and the better
> reasonings and then suggest that the RFC "yes" vote means A, B or C while
> summarizing the reasons of the choice for it in the RFC itself.
>
> A language change vote requiring 2/3 majority on a Yes/No and a simple
> majority in an option basically means not requiring 2/3 at all, but 50%
> (with 2 options) at most!
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
