On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: >> However, what you refer to is about internals API. We can (and did a >> lot) break ABI between x.y and x.y+1 and should really avoid breaking API >> (read: signatures, source compatibility) if possible. > > I think we need to clear it up in the RFC. My take: > > - Switch from talking about 'ABI' to 'extension API' > - Divide the extension API into source-level and binary-level > - For x.y+1, make it clear that there's no need to retain binary-level > extension API, and that source-level extension API is a 'should' and not a > 'must'.
On it, adding the reference to ABI/API definition as well. -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
