Re: The RFC discussion process?

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Arnold Daniels <arnold.adaniels.nl@gmail.com> wrote: > > [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. To clarify again, I had these questions *before* the Object Initializer RFC was proposed. Please do not assume I asked these questions because of any form of "sour grapes" about the Object Initializer RFC discussions. Yes I want object initializers but my questions were not a passive-agreesive way to try and get that to pass. They are honest questions unrelated to the Object Initializer RFC that I have wondered about based upon my reading of all the discussion on the recent contentious RFCs. I created a new thread so that my questions could be discussed in the general context and not in the context of Object Initializer RFC. The only reason I referenced the Object Initializer RFC because it was a recent example and thus a convenient one to reference. I now wish I had not included any examples in my list of questions because it has caused the answers to be focused on that RFC and not RFCs in general. -Mike