On 07/05/2021 09:10, Nikita Popov wrote:
If we want to include "writing documentation"
as part of the change process, then it would be much more valuable to write
documentation for php.net, which is used by hundreds of thousands of
developers, rather than the language specification, which is used
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:01 PM Christoph M. Becker
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wonder what to do with the PHP Language Specification[1]. Apparently,
> the repo is abandoned (last commit was more than a year ago, although
> PHP 8 changed quite some stuff). If we don't have the bandwidth to
> maintain
On 5/6/21 11:37, Larry Garfield wrote:
Is it going to be supported by people working on core? Fantastic. If not,
it's going to get and stay out of date and offer not enough value for anyone to
bother stepping up to pick up that slack. (As we've seen.)
I think we should require RFCs that pr
Hi!
I wonder what to do with the PHP Language Specification[1]. Apparently,
the repo is abandoned (last commit was more than a year ago, although
PHP 8 changed quite some stuff). If we don't have the bandwidth to
maintain it, we should mark it as unmaintained, and maybe some of the
information
On 06.05.2021 at 18:37, Michał Marcin Brzuchalski wrote:
> czw., 6 maj 2021, 17:23 użytkownik Sara Golemon napisał:
>
>> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:10 AM Michał Marcin Brzuchalski <
>> michal.brzuchal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> czw., 6 maj 2021, 16:01 użytkownik Christoph M. Becker >>>
>>> napisa
On Thu, May 6, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:10 AM Michał Marcin Brzuchalski <
> michal.brzuchal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > czw., 6 maj 2021, 16:01 użytkownik Christoph M. Becker
> > napisał:
> >
> > > I wonder what to do with the PHP Language Specification[1]
czw., 6 maj 2021, 17:23 użytkownik Sara Golemon napisał:
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:10 AM Michał Marcin Brzuchalski <
> michal.brzuchal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> czw., 6 maj 2021, 16:01 użytkownik Christoph M. Becker > >
>> napisał:
>>
>> > I wonder what to do with the PHP Language Specification
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:10 AM Michał Marcin Brzuchalski <
michal.brzuchal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> czw., 6 maj 2021, 16:01 użytkownik Christoph M. Becker
> napisał:
>
> > I wonder what to do with the PHP Language Specification[1]. Apparently,
> > the repo is abandoned (last commit was more than
czw., 6 maj 2021, 16:01 użytkownik Christoph M. Becker
napisał:
> Hi all,
>
> I wonder what to do with the PHP Language Specification[1]. Apparently,
> the repo is abandoned (last commit was more than a year ago, although
> PHP 8 changed quite some stuff). If we don't have the bandwidth to
> ma
Hi all,
I wonder what to do with the PHP Language Specification[1]. Apparently,
the repo is abandoned (last commit was more than a year ago, although
PHP 8 changed quite some stuff). If we don't have the bandwidth to
maintain it, we should mark it as unmaintained, and maybe some of the
informati
On 26/07/2014 22:55, Chris Wright wrote:
On 25 July 2014 17:25, Larry Garfield wrote:
On 7/24/14, 2:38 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Rowan Collins
wrote:
Zend is only one of many
contributors. Yes, the engine is still named Zend Engine but the
language has been im
On 25 July 2014 17:25, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 7/24/14, 2:38 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Rowan Collins
>> wrote:
Zend is only one of many
contributors. Yes, the engine is still named Zend Engine but the
language has been improved by many
On 7/24/14, 2:38 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
Zend is only one of many
contributors. Yes, the engine is still named Zend Engine but the
language has been improved by many php.net contributors.
The idea was that "ZPHP" is PHP running on top of
Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa wrote (on 25/07/2014):
On 24/07/2014 15:40, Rowan Collins wrote:
Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa wrote (on 24/07/2014):
Taking the example of XML, CSS, HTML, ECMAScript or other languages
(maybe the JVM, I don't know exactly), there is version numbers for
the specification, that are d
On 24/07/2014 15:40, Rowan Collins wrote:
Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa wrote (on 24/07/2014):
Taking the example of XML, CSS, HTML, ECMAScript or other languages
(maybe the JVM, I don't know exactly), there is version numbers for
the specification, that are different of the version numbers of the
impl
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:51 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP Language Specification
>
>
> I'd contend CPHP hasn't been named for 1
On 24 Jul 2014, at 21:47, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> We saw how much time it took us to decide about a version number, let's
> not waste cycles on coming up for a name for something that has been named
> for over 15 years.
I’d contend CPHP hasn’t been named for 15 years as it has had no name for the
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:44 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Sara Golemon; Rowan Collins; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP Language Specification
>
>
> "PHP.net PHP" is
On 24 Jul 2014, at 21:32, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Ok, maybe I missed the context, and if I did apologies for that. Are you
> talking about a standard way of discussing it on internals@ when we talk
> about the spec and different implementations of it?
Yeah, sorry if I didn’t make myself clear. T
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 24 Jul 2014, at 21:23, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > CPython is the name of the implementation, but python.org offers you to
> > download Python, not CPython. CPython is an internal name kind of like
> > php-src (more or less). In fact,
On 24/07/2014 21:28, Zeev Suraski wrote:
"PHP 5.6" -> the php.net implementation
This is the one that led us down this particular path: the spec will
necessarily have versions of its own, and the obvious thing to do is to
make them match the minor versions of the reference implementation; so
Maybe there’s hope for the middle east J
*From:* Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:29 PM
*To:* Zeev Suraski
*Cc:* Andrea Faulds; PHP internals; Rowan Collins
*Subject:* RE: [PHP-DEV] PHP Language Specification
On Jul 24, 2014 10:02 PM, "
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:26 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Sara Golemon; Rowan Collins; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP Language Specification
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2014, at 21:23, Zeev
On 24/07/2014 21:12, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I don't recall if it was === or 'is', but regardless, the meaning was
absolutely 'Zend is PHP' (as in everything Zend does is PHP), and not 'PHP
is Zend'. Regardless, since it was clearly misunderstood by many people we
stopped using it :)
See also the
On Jul 24, 2014 10:02 PM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
>
> I think we're overcomplicating things a bit...
>
...
> absolutely refer to that thing you download from www.php.net (or packages
> based off of it) - not the language spec.
I totally agree with you here. PHP is and remains php.net's PHP.
Cheers
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:21 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP Language Specification
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2014, at 21:18, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
On 24 Jul 2014, at 21:23, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> CPython is the name of the implementation, but python.org offers you to
> download Python, not CPython. CPython is an internal name kind of like
> php-src (more or less). In fact, as an average end user, you'd not know
> about CPython at all.
Of
es 'Python', they're
implementations of the Python language.
Zeev
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:19 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Sara Golemon; Rowan Collins; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV]
On 24 Jul 2014, at 21:18, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> No, there's no ambiguity at all - 'PHP' is the implementation, as it
> always has been. 'PHP language specification' or 'PHP spec' for short is
> the specification. Absolutely no ambiguity.
So PHP is variously the language (as in PHP language sp
On 24 Jul 2014, at 21:12, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Other opensource languages that have multiple implementations, still have
> the 'official' release with the original name, while other implementations
> have separate, different names that implement 'the XYZ language' or 'the
> ABC spec'.
>
> E.g
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:04 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Rowan Collins; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP Language Specification
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2014, at 21:00, Zeev Su
> We (HHVM) ran into this issue as well. We'd talk about the way PHP (the
> reference implementation) does something and needed to disambiguate it
> from
> PHP (the language syntax).
I think it's easy enough to talk about 'PHP' and the 'PHP language
specification' or shorten it up as 'PHP spec'.
On 24 Jul 2014, at 21:00, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I think that the language spec initiative is a great initiative, but let's
> not get carried away and start turning things upside down. This would be
> the 'PHP language specification', not 'PHP'. PHP would ideally adhere to
> it. Other implemen
et (or packages
based off of it) - not the language spec.
Zeev
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 5:29 PM
> To: Rowan Collins
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP Language Specification
>
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
>> Zend is only one of many
>> contributors. Yes, the engine is still named Zend Engine but the
>> language has been improved by many php.net contributors.
>>
> The idea was that "ZPHP" is PHP running on top of the Zend Engine, in the
> same w
On 24/07/2014 19:28, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>We could take a leaf from Python’s book and call it CPHP :)
>
>
>Or ZPHP? Implying the PHP implementation built on Zend, but not directly
>using the Zend trademark?
Call it php.net or something like that,
The problem with php.net is that it's also the
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Andrea Faulds wrote (on 24/07/2014):
>
>> On 24 Jul 2014, at 14:40, Rowan Collins wrote:
>>
>>> Incidentally, that's another question: some people like to make clear
>>> that the Zend Engine isn't actually the language implementation, it jus
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 24 Jul 2014, at 14:40, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, that's another question: some people like to make clear
> that the Zend Engine isn't actually the language implementation, it just
> *powers* the implementation. In which
On 24 Jul 2014, at 15:44, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Or ZPHP? Implying the PHP implementation built on Zend, but not directly
> using the Zend trademark?
I like that suggestion. Reminds me of my CPHP one, but it makes more sense.
So we’d have PHP 5.6 and ZPHP 5.6.1 (ZPHP would track major and min
Andrea Faulds wrote (on 24/07/2014):
On 24 Jul 2014, at 14:40, Rowan Collins wrote:
Incidentally, that's another question: some people like to make clear that the
Zend Engine isn't actually the language implementation, it just *powers* the
implementation. In which case, what *should* the imp
On 24 Jul 2014, at 14:40, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Incidentally, that's another question: some people like to make clear that
> the Zend Engine isn't actually the language implementation, it just *powers*
> the implementation. In which case, what *should* the implementation be called?
That’s ac
Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa wrote (on 24/07/2014):
Taking the example of XML, CSS, HTML, ECMAScript or other languages
(maybe the JVM, I don't know exactly), there is version numbers for
the specification, that are different of the version numbers of the
implementations. Even more, the version of the i
On 23/07/2014 22:59, Ben Ramsey wrote:
This got me thinking about the whole version number debate. With a language
specification, to what does the version number refer? The state of the language
specification, or the state of a given implementation of the specification?
Right now, the number
On 23/07/2014 13:06, Lester Caine wrote:
I have always put the 'default:' as the last item in the list since it's
what is left after processing all the other options and one may or may
not have fallen out.
This is intuitive, and arguably good coding style, but not necessary as
switch statemen
On 23/07/2014 22:27, Andrea Faulds wrote:
For majors and minors things are quite clear-cut. Zend PHP 5.6 implements PHP
5.6 as specified, and I imagine that HHVM foo.bar is going to say it’s
“5.6-compliant” or something of the sort. The problem is micro versions. 5.6.1
is probably going to be
On 23 Jul 2014, at 21:59, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> This got me thinking about the whole version number debate. With a language
> specification, to what does the version number refer? The state of the
> language specification, or the state of a given implementation of the
> specification? Right now
On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:59 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On the flip side, there is definitely value in representatives from other
> implementations having a voice in changes that affect them, but that could
> just mean ensuring that members of those projects are involved within the
> current framew
On 22/07/14 20:50, Sara Golemon wrote:
> http://dl.hhvm.com/resources/PHPSpec-SneakPeak.pdf
I know this is a peak at the new documentation, but it flagged up
something when I was scanning through.
switch Statement ...
I have always put the 'default:' as the last item in the list since it's
what
On 07/23/2014 12:48 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
I dunno, with syntax changes being 2/3rd majority and our formal RFC
process in place, I think we (PHP) can reasonably learn to make
updating the spec a formal part of our process.
Requiring an RFC that changes syntax (or core semantics) to provide a
I have a thought about the spec.
I work on Yii framework and the team building it has a great policy - if
your changes to the code require changes to the documentation - you are
required to update the docs. No docs changes - no merge.
The most up to date documentation I have ever seen.
Maybe for
Hi,
> On 23.07.2014, at 11:22, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>> Another idea would be a Git repository with the specification as
>> markdown files. This would allow creating Pull Requests via GitHub.
>
> I think facilitating discussion and feedback is more important than
> change tracking for
Hi!
> Another idea would be a Git repository with the specification as
> markdown files. This would allow creating Pull Requests via GitHub.
I think facilitating discussion and feedback is more important than
change tracking for now, but given github also has issues facility it
may actually work.
On 22/07/14 23:28, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> I would propose choosing some collaborative platform for managing it,
> something like Google Docs (suggestions about best platform ever for
> that are welcome :) so that people could comment on specific parts and
> keep track of what is the current state a
Rowan Collins wrote:
> Stas Malyshev wrote (on 22/07/2014):
>> Alternatively, we could do a wiki maybe but the problem there is that it
>> is hard to export (unless anybody knows wiki setups that can be easily
>> exported into single document).
>
> Something like Wikipedia's "Create a Book" feature
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> Just announced something at OSCON that's probably going to get a lot
> of folks talking and making assumptions, so before things get out of
> hand, I want to provide some context.
>
> We (As in PHP) have been talking about making a spec for th
Stas Malyshev wrote (on 22/07/2014):
Alternatively, we could do a wiki maybe but the problem there is that it
is hard to export (unless anybody knows wiki setups that can be easily
exported into single document).
Something like Wikipedia's "Create a Book" feature perhaps? [1] That can
be set u
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Stas Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > To that end, we (as in Facebook), have been putting together a formal
> > language spec for PHP (using PHP 5.6 as the source of truth) along
> > with an additional conformance test suite (which compliments
> > Zend/tests). We've t
On 23 Jul 2014, at 00:01, Sara Golemon wrote:
> Our RFCs tend to have implementations attached to them (in someone's
> personal fork). IMO we should make creating the spec PR part of the
> RFC acceptance process, and that they should be landed together. I
> agree it doesn't make much sense to d
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Ah, I think you misunderstand. What I mean is that we
> should only propose RFCs which change the spec
> when there is already a working implementation first.
> Otherwise, we might add things to the spec which won’t
> or can’t get implemented
On 22 Jul 2014, at 23:48, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> On 22 Jul 2014, at 23:37, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>> The big question here, though, is whether, going forward, we'll be
>>> able to mentally switch to a "spec first" mentality. If not, the
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2014, at 23:37, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> The big question here, though, is whether, going forward, we'll be
>> able to mentally switch to a "spec first" mentality. If not, the spec will
>> get out of date and become less than usef
On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2014, at 23:37, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
>> The big question here, though, is whether, going forward, we'll be able to
>> mentally switch to a "spec first" mentality. If not, the spec will get out
>> of date and become less than us
On 22 Jul 2014, at 23:37, Larry Garfield wrote:
> The big question here, though, is whether, going forward, we'll be able to
> mentally switch to a "spec first" mentality. If not, the spec will get out
> of date and become less than useful. I hope we're able to make that
> transition.
I th
On 7/22/14, 5:32 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Good luck documenting PHP’s inconsistent semantics, though.
It’ll either be endlessly detailed, or not matching PHP 5.6.
To be honest, I think we should probably clean up PHP’s
semantics so they can b
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2014, at 23:32, Sara Golemon wrote:
>> As you suppose, some of that bulk is down to the kinds of things that
>> the Unified Variable Syntax RFC is trying to resolve. On the plus
>> side, the guy who's been writing the spec is insa
Hi!
> To that end, we (as in Facebook), have been putting together a formal
> language spec for PHP (using PHP 5.6 as the source of truth) along
> with an additional conformance test suite (which compliments
> Zend/tests). We've talked to some engine folks along the way to get
> feedback and make
On 22 Jul 2014, at 23:32, Sara Golemon wrote:
> As you suppose, some of that bulk is down to the kinds of things that
> the Unified Variable Syntax RFC is trying to resolve. On the plus
> side, the guy who's been writing the spec is insanely detail oriented
> (and has experience writing languag
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Good luck documenting PHP’s inconsistent semantics, though.
> It’ll either be endlessly detailed, or not matching PHP 5.6.
> To be honest, I think we should probably clean up PHP’s
> semantics so they can be more clearly specified.
>
200 page
On 22 Jul 2014, at 20:50, Sara Golemon wrote:
> To that end, we (as in Facebook), have been putting together a formal
> language spec for PHP (using PHP 5.6 as the source of truth) along
> with an additional conformance test suite (which compliments
> Zend/tests). We've talked to some engine fo
Sara, I can't even begin to thank you and your team enough for this. This
is incredibly huge.
You're right, a spec has become even more important with new engines and
implementations like PHPNG and HHVM in the works. I wondered if this were
to ever happen. It never seemed like anyone in the PHP co
Just announced something at OSCON that's probably going to get a lot
of folks talking and making assumptions, so before things get out of
hand, I want to provide some context.
We (As in PHP) have been talking about making a spec for the PHP
language for a LONG time. With PHPNG around the corner,
71 matches
Mail list logo
