Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35929
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.94.56 as permitted sender)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:21:53 +0100
Reply-To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
Message-ID: <1123339738.20080303212153@marcus-boerger.de>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>
CC: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <47CC57F9.7010502@zend.com>
References: <1706278209.20080302232134@marcus-boerger.de> <47CB2E9D.6010102@zend.com> <1642796941.20080303002651@marcus-boerger.de> <47CB8107.1090802@zend.com> <1207450994.20080303113313@marcus-boerger.de> <47CC4A9D.1080705@zend.com> <772359818.20080303204412@marcus-boerger.de> <47CC57F9.7010502@zend.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Replace the flex-based scanner with an re2c [1] based lexer
From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger)

Hello Stanislav,

Monday, March 3, 2008, 8:56:41 PM, you wrote:

> Hi!

>> interface but that wasn't really a good idea. So I came up with a new
>> interface and all that this would break is stuff like Phar (well there is

> If it breaks phar, it may break others too... Anyway, good description 
> of what was changed won't hurt.

>>> 2. PHP 5.x is same-major branch, where you are not expected to have to 
>>> change your system in order to upgrade.
>> Oh since when? Where did you read that?

> Since forever, that's why we have major and minor versions.

>> I don't care at all. So far the plan was to bring in ICU and there is no

> In PHP 6, not 5.3.

http://wiki.pooteeweet.org/PhP53#toc3 item 2.
One cannot go any more official than that. Lukas simply collects stuff
there that we talk about and mybe even decide up on. If we change our minds
later we shift stuff around or even drop them. That said it looks like it
is still on our goal list and I've not yet heard someone saying something
else.

>> In software there is nothing like 100% Or is everything you work on bug
>> free? Mine isn't. It took me more than two years to make re2c ready for
>> this task (take this in whatever way you feel).

> I'm not talking about bugs. I'm talking about having compatible engine 
> implementation. Nobody would require 100% bug-free code, it's not 
> realistic. Requirement is that scripts that run on 5.2 would run on 5.3, 
> not counting bugs. I guess you agree having no multibyte support does 
> not really qualifies as "bug" :) So we are talking about if putting it 
> in now might hurt 5.3 release process by postponing it for a long time 
> or not. If not - great.

Heck, yeah, guess we proposed this after we got the same 99% PASSes we get
on a normal checkout. Besides a few additional Phar tests and well three
tests whose outout might change. Where changes are like getting full error
messages rather than cut down ones in edgecases.

>> How so? We don't use git or any other CMS that allows merging at all. I

> CVS allows merging. I did it a lot of times. Of course, there could be 
> conflicts, but the engine is quite static now, so I don't foresee a lot 
> of them.

CVS does merging on its own when ther are no conflicts. I am talking about
real merge support.

Best regards,
 Marcus