Re: Soft-reserve "void" class name
| From: | Levi Morrison | Date: | Tue, 19 May 2015 16:16:48 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Soft-reserve "void" class name | ||
| Groups: | php.internals | ||
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-86308@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
I strongly disagree with this action. These types required an RFC; why
should this be different? Also note that neither of the reserve
typename RFC were unanimous.
Furthermore, we are past the RFC stage. We are *supposed to already
have an alpha* by now and we are proposing new changes?. Please stick
to our established rules and release timetables as much as possible,
thank you.