On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Sara Golemon <poll...@php.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think dropping this behavior is a good idea, but I'm confused by the > > reasoning related to the langspec. > > This rfc targets php.next (which is a safe move as this has BC break > albeit > > would require some questionable code), but the langspec was agreed to be > > based on 5.6 and document how that works. > > > Did we agree on that? The lang spec was originally written to 5.6 to > have a relatively stable target, but (in my mind at least) was meant > to track master as we move the language forward. Was there a > discussion about branching the langspec repo for versions? maybe that was just my impression. I'm not sure what would be the best solution, but if we don't version the spec, then when we introduce BC breaks or simply new features in a new version which is in turn get's added to the spec, that would make the older php version's(from any implementation) not being compliant with the spec. would be nice checking out how other spec-driven languages manage this problem (I know that at least java has separate spec for each major version), but I don't think that a single spec can exists which allows alternative implementations to say that they comform me spec while the reference implementation and the spec can still change/evolve after the initial release. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
