Re: The RFC discussion process?

[Arnold Daniels - Chat @ Spike](https://www.spikenow.com/?ref=spike-organic-signature&_ts=5wb22) [5wb22] On September 16, 2019 at 7:40 GMT, Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote: > > > > 1. Alternatives to the RFC? > > 2. Enhancements to the RFC? > > 3. Modifications to the RFC? > > 4. Other features that are a pre-requisite for the RFC's feature? > > 5. Other features that would add value to the RFC's feature? > > > > > Everything you list is appropriate to talk about as feedback to an RFC. IMHO what you see with the object initializer discussion, has gone beyond "I think named arguments is a good alternative, because ...". A big part of the thread is about how to best implement named arguments and other (possibly alternative) features. This overshadows the topic of the original RFC. Additionally, even if the general consensus is that named arguments are indeed a better alternative, it doesn't help to advance PHP forward, since no progress is being made to implement that feature. As such, it would be preferable if the RFC about named arguments (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/simplified_named_params) was revived and discussed out of context of the object initializer RFC.