On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Levi Morrison <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi Pierre and Levi,
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Pierre Joye <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > Hi Simon and Levi,
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Simon J Welsh <[email protected]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> The tests have it after the use():
>>> >>
>>> >> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/997/files#diff-e306c6e99612ba59b00a4fe435b287e5R9
>>> >>
>>> >> This was discussed in depth a couple of times in the related threads.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for the information. It should be in the RFC. IMHO.
>>> > I feels natural to have type spec after function parameter definition
>>> > rather than
>>> > after "use".
>>>
>>> Please do not change the RFC during votes phase, or re start it.
>>>
>>> If many of the voters feel like they were voted on something different
>>> of what is being discussed here, it may be a good thing to restart it.
>>> However I think we all understood it as it is described in this
>>> thread. Let update it after the votes or for the docs.
>>
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>> Let's update the RFC after vote.
>
> According to the previous discussion the return type goes after the
> use statement, and this is how it is implemented. There has not been
> an unintentional mistake here.
>
> If you disagree with that decision I am open to discussing it again.
> Since it isn't actually mentioned in the RFC (which was an oversight,
> I apologize) I'm not sure we'd have to revote on it. Anyone else have
> an opinion on this?
Addint/editing it means a re vote.
I do not think it is necessary at is pretty clear, or I think it is.
At the very least, let wait after the vote ended, to see if complains
will be raised.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org