Re: RFC: Single-Expression functions
Thanks Tim for the answer.
Your replies went to the Spam folder. I don't know why.
I'll change the template as you suggested as soon as possible.
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 1:11 PM Tim Düsterhus <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 2025-05-27 09:08, schrieb Dmitry Derepko:
> > As Tim said, it needs at least a 2 week discussion period.
> >
> >
> > Could you share the reference?
>
> I already did in my email: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto (“When
> discussion ends, and a minimum period of two weeks has passed”).
>
> > Here it is. I've added the link to the RFC.
> >
>
> It took me a while to find the link in the “References” section, because
> that's not where I expected it based on other RFCs. Overall the RFC
> diverges from the RFC template quite a bit. As an example, the “RFC
> Impact” section is entirely missing. The “Voting Choices” section is as
> well. The “Metadata” section at the top is formatted differently for no
> reason (and still indicates that the RFC is a Draft). As far as I can
> tell it's also not listed in the RFC overview at
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc either.
>
> As a first-time RFC author, I would recommend you strictly following the
> template and the “RFC How-To” to make sure that the RFC is complete and
> follows proper process.
>
> Best regards
> Tim Düsterhus
>
--
Dmitriy Derepko
Thread (13 messages)