On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Tjerk Meesters <tjerk.meesters@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Rasmus,
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>wrote:
>
>> Tjerk, I hadn't noticed this part of your patch before.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/datibbaw/php-src/commit/f60b98cf7a8371233d800a6faa286ddba4432d02
>>
>> I don't think this is necessary and it looks odd having pow as a
>> language construct. There is nothing wrong with having pow() as a
>> regular legacy function here.
>>
>
> When Pierre suggested it I admittedly had not thought it through enough
> what the possible issues could be and to paraphrase Phil Sturgeon, doing
> this would break "public function pow() { }" and that's not acceptable.
>
> This obviously means that the voting has to be broken off ... like, again.
>
> I'm so sorry about this; it seems that the truly good observations only
> come during voting phase ...
>
> The following will be done:
> 1) Voting gets closed
> 2) Status goes back to Discussion
> 3) Code changes will be made and will be documented in the RFC
>
The changes have been made, the offending commit has been reverted and the
PR updated. Travis reported a build failure but afaict not due to these
changes.
4) RFC stays that way until next year
> 5) Voting opens again.
>
Waiting for that long seemed a bit overkill, so I've reopened the vote now.
Whoever changed or removed their vote because of the construct issue,
please review the changes and update their vote where necessary.
>
>
>> Without this piece I think adding ** is a good idea.
>>
>> -Rasmus
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Tjerk
>
--
--
Tjerk