I agree 100%. This particular item has been in the works since before I joined the team and I've given them a bollocking out over it. You may have noticed UConverter and a few other changes which WERE proposed to internals@ prior to inclusion in HHVM and the implementation of those features were changed based on the feedback received from this group.
I'm on PHP's side, guys. On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Sara Golemon <poll...@php.net> wrote: > >> I won't suggest that PHP should follow HHVM, if anything I'll usually (and >> have frequently) rallied for the other way around. In this case, however, >> as with Generators, I think that we should endeavor to keep the >> implementations close together by the most appropriate means. I don't >> want >> two versions of PHP syntax. >> > > It would be nice if the HHVM devs could send a mail over to internals when > you're including new syntax, so we are a) aware of the fact that you're > adding it and might consider adding it too and b) have a chance to provide > some input on the feature (in particular also in order to bring it into a > form that PHP would be willing to include). > > I understand that discussing some new feature on internals most likely > needs five times more time than actually implementing it in HHVM, but I > think that it would benefit everyone if there was some communication > between the projects :) > > Nikita >
