Re: [VOTE] Add IntlDatePatternGenerator
On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 4:25 PM Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
wrote:
> On 29.05.2021 at 10:02, Mel Dafert wrote:
>
> >> Agreed with Nikita. There's no compelling reason to add double-API
> style anymore. It may take a second RFC to modify this one to remove
> those, technically, but I'd vote for it.
> >
> > Should this new RFC then only apply to IntlDatePatternGenerator, or
> should it also
> > clarify that future additions to the intl extension (or to extensions in
> general?)
> > should not add both styles and prefer OO style if possible?
>
> IMO, an RFC which generally "forbids" the introduction of new dual APIs
> would make sense. I don't think that we *need* an RFC to remove the
> procedural API of IntlDatePatternGenerator.
>
Right, for the purposes of this RFC, it's okay to just drop them if there
are no objections. A general policy RFC may still be useful for future
reference.
Nikita
Thread (9 messages)