Hi! > RFC must maintain consistency across existing features/specifications,
There's a lot of things people call "consistency", apparently. I don't see inventing new syntax for doing concatenation to have anything to do with consistency. > make things worse certainly. Making patch and/or RFC simple is not the > reason why we have RFC, but to have full featured/discussed/consistent To have simple patch is not really why we have RFCs, of course. But having simple (or not overly complex) RFC is a sign of a good RFC. On the contrary, overly complex and convoluted ones make it hard to review them and usually lead to unintended consequences and mistakes since it is hard to predict the outcomes in such complexity. > Aren't we better to have consistent/complete RFCs almost always? Since everybody defines "consistent" to mean pretty much anything they want, there's no answer to this question. -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
