On 24/03/2014 10:42, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Johannes Schlüter
<
[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 10:15 +0100, Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa wrote:
[snip]
Finally, I think that internal@ is responsible to start such a
standardization process because this group has made the historical
interpreter.
It is building the reference implementation. If other implementations
add new features they can and they can propose it for inclusion in the
reference implementation by which it becomes part of the language
definition. While old parts of the implementation are only documented in
code and reference documentation form the RFC process provides more
architectural of new features.
Agreed on the contributions process, however:
Ivan is talking about specifications, an implementation follows a
given specification, not the other way 'round. A well written
specification greatly simplify documentations, implementation(s) and
testing, to name only a few advantages.
+1. You have understood me.
That being said, I find very disturbing the total lack of interest
from historical (from a time pov, not activity) core developers in the
next major version.
I don't know the reason. It is related to the vision/goal of PHP, to the code? Without an answer to this question, we can't fix it.
Most drastic changes around PHP happen outside
PHP, many features our users are looking for are implemented outside
the core while we keep arguing about the needs of these features. This
is not a good thing.
I deeply think that a specification will gather people around the same goal. RFC already do this job, but we need to go further.
--
Ivan Enderlin
Developer of Hoa
http://hoa-project.net/
PhD. student at DISC/Femto-ST (Vesontio) and INRIA (Cassis)
http://disc.univ-fcomte.fr/ and http://www.inria.fr/
Member of HTML and WebApps Working Group of W3C
http://w3.org/