I don't think a consensus on the following points is likely to emerge without voting on them individually. I propose carrying out a vote with up to three questions to be answered depending on your response to each. We could then proceed to discuss the (relatively boring but essential) details of keywords and extensions, if any, and create a final RFC.
Hopefully all parties can agree to be bound by the results of a vote on these three questions and work together to create a final RFC that abides by the result or let the matter drop. Let's briefly discuss whether these questions truly represent the major differences between the three RFCs (not the merits of those positions please) and then, I hope, carry out a vote on them so we can move on. The Questions: 1. Whether a "pure code" mode in which <?php is not required at the top of a file, and the <?php and ?> tags are not permitted at all in such a file: * Has merit and should be pursued (option 1a), or * Should be dropped entirely (option 1b). If your vote is for option 1a, please respond to the following additional question: 2. Whether "pure code" mode should be: * Toggled globally by a php.ini option such that <?php and ?> tags are completely forbidden when this mode is active (option 2a), or * Switched on by keywords and SAPI options that allow the sysadmin and developer to make the choice at runtime, with the ability to make that choice differently for different files or invocations, so that a mix of "pure code" files and files that forbid <?php and ?> can exist (option 2b). 3. If your vote is for option 2b, please respond to the following additional question: Whether "pure code" mode should: * Forbid requiring a non-pure file from a pure file (option 3a), or * Permit requiring non-pure files from pure files (option 3b). I believe Kris Craig and Yasuo Ohgaki will find that these questions accurately sum up our really significant unreconciled differences (and, with the inclusion of question 1, the position of those who don't want the feature at all). These three questions deliberately don't address what the keywords or file extensions or other mechanisms are called exactly, because I believe those issues to be fairly simple to agree upon once we have decided the basics. On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > hi, > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Perhaps a new list for RFC-specific discussions? =) > > We don't need yet a new list. Sit down together and get over your > differences and create the RFC or more if you can't get over your > differences. > > Cheers, > -- > 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 > -- Tom Boutell P'unk Avenue 215 755 1330 punkave.com window.punkave.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
