Hello, On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:19, G. P. B. <george.bany...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler <chasepee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean > > the > > > original RFC that passed is still in effect? > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is really ambiguous, and risks the situation being even more > > confusing than it was before. > > > > The "No" column on this RFC already includes people who voted "Yes" on the > > previous version; is this an indication that they have changed their mind > > about removing short tags, or that they prefer the original proposal? > > > > I think we urgently need to clarify this, and may need to reset the vote > > with one or more clearer questions. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Rowan Collins > > [IMSoP] > > > This RFC supersedes the previous one as stated in the the RFC itself : " > This RFC supersedes the previous one and proposes a different deprecation > approach." meaning that the previous one is void. > I don't know why this is ambiguous and needs to be said once again. > > Best regards > > George P. Banyard
Thank you for clarification. From what I understand it is the case where "no" means a status quo and no agreements has been reached on the original RFC. Since the original RFC has been vetoed and so much energy was invested from Zeev and some others commentators then I guess the RFCs fail and we will have two types of opening tags in PHP for ever. Otherwise, as described, yes. -- Peter Kokot -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
