Re: How to indicate support for unimplemented part of an RFC
| From: | Rowan Collins | Date: | Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:48:27 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: How to indicate support for unimplemented part of an RFC | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-93994@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 14/06/2016 20:11, Leigh wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 at 22:30 Matthew Browne <mbrowne83@gmail.com> wrote:In this particular instance, it may be more to the point to create an *implementation* of it. The reason it was omitted was not for lack of desire, but due to practical problems of how to make it work. See for instance http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=142791636808421&w=2 Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]Hi, What is the proper way to express support for an item that's not an official part of an RFC but is listed as an idea for future consideration? Specifically I wanted to give my "+1" for covariant return types which are mentioned in passing in this RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/return_types.I think you'd go ahead and create an RFC for it :)