hi, On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote:
> While I'm not sure whether this isn't a bit premature to have this > discussion, if we were to have this discussion, the RFC should do a much > better job at summarizing the discussions we already had in the past. I think it is not premature but also totally not important, but a matter of priorities I suppose... > First, it shouldn't be a yes/no for PHP 6, but rather, a 'PHP 6, PHP 7, or > Defer Decision' or at least 'PHP 6 / PHP 7'. Agree here, while my oppinion is clearly for 6, which is the next major version after 5, last time I checked. But as you said, no need to re do the discussions. > Another couple of cents - both because of what I said here but also > unrelated, I think /rfc/php6 is a bad name for this RFC (both because > there's more than one option, but also because this is too generic for > something as wide as the next version of PHP). Perhaps /rfc/php2015 is a > better choice, I seriously hope that you take 2015 as pure example here. As I see no remote chance to be ready next year. PHPNG is a huge stack of undocumented perf patches far from being ready, APIs &code cleanup did not even begin, and the existing APIs are even more ugly. This is not going to be a small task, besides other things that we may like to have in the next major version. A 2 years development period sounds much more realistic to me. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
