Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60293
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAORXhGLdTh20tUA=cTYckx-arV7u_MeyeQDcXBDdiNA=Gc_nUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKOpQSw_sxFcY+1+7s-ZLeCp3Gf_kagztpaM7JSiG=iaOEWK6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhGLdTh20tUA=cTYckx-arV7u_MeyeQDcXBDdiNA=Gc_nUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:42:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSwZ4_Bae+TSditLWCqJpCGLpk=y++1YQgw60rEfNWhzOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>
Cc: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0438932b62208704be73a214
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pure PHP Scripts (Updated)
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d0438932b62208704be73a214
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote:

> * The RFC starts off immediately talking about file extensions, but
> the actual implementation proposed doesn't rely on file extensions or
> suggest any enforcement of them. That disparity should be addressed
> for clarity.
>

Did you read the whole RFC?  Please refer to the "Naming Conventions"
section.  It addresses this explicitly.

Are you saying that section wasn't sufficiently clear or did you just miss
it?


>
> * The RFC quotes an entire discussion with a lot of harsh language
> about coding practices that are currently considered standard in most
> MVC frameworks, including the original message you were responding to
> (which happened to be mine). I am not sure you intended to leave all
> that in. In general that discussion contradicts the work you've done
> elsewhere in the RFC to propose both .phpp and .phpf.
>

Could you elaborate?  The only thing from the Internals discussion I
actually copy/pasted was the example I posted pertaining to the bitwise
constant; it was very technical in nature and didn't contain any harsh
language that I could see.  Or are you referring to something else?  If so,
please let me know what it is and I can fix it.


>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I finally found some time today to update the RFC based on discussions
> > here.  Please have a look and let me know if I missed anything or if
> > there's anything else that needs clarifying:
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpp
> >
> >
> > I also want to know if this is sufficient to satisfy some of the concerns
> > that have been raised about being able to implement this into existing
> > frameworks that use a more "tangled" architecture.
> >
> > Thanks!  =)
> >
> > --Kris
>
>
>
> --
> Tom Boutell
> P'unk Avenue
> 215 755 1330
> punkave.com
> window.punkave.com
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--f46d0438932b62208704be73a214--