Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60306
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain punkave.com designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSzhW8wAumKMZJ2WpaTEWTy13u4cszLWV0rodSF4uWCzKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKOpQSw_sxFcY+1+7s-ZLeCp3Gf_kagztpaM7JSiG=iaOEWK6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhGLdTh20tUA=cTYckx-arV7u_MeyeQDcXBDdiNA=Gc_nUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSwZ4_Bae+TSditLWCqJpCGLpk=y++1YQgw60rEfNWhzOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9D120847-C2AB-47C4-BCE4-6F68F3C6FE06@gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSzhW8wAumKMZJ2WpaTEWTy13u4cszLWV0rodSF4uWCzKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:54:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAORXhGL7rdJ1me45o0b0aYRiVBh8hw7g3s-hfg2YbhwDPp81Eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: Tjerk Meesters <tjerk.meesters@gmail.com>, PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pure PHP Scripts (Updated)
From: tom@punkave.com (Tom Boutell)

Please review the section titled "Inclusion of Mixed Code," which
contains the quoted conversation I referred to, with commentary about
"bad, lazy" architecture that is currently standard in numerous
frameworks. I understand that you feel that in future such frameworks
will make a different set of choices, but it still doesn't make sense
to import that old thread of argument into your RFC directly. I think
you mean to present the diagram only, with a more dispassionate
explanation of its purpose.

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Tjerk Meesters <tjerk.meesters@gmail.com=
>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 25 Apr, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 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? =A0Please refer to the "Naming Conventions=
"
>> > section. =A0It addresses this explicitly.
>> >
>> > Are you saying that section wasn't sufficiently clear or did you just
>> > miss
>> > it?
>> >
>>
>> I think what he means is that the abstract section should be, well,
>> abstract. Currently it appears more detailed than it should be by referr=
ing
>> to file extensions on the let go. I would phrase that section in a way t=
hat
>> doesn't rely on another section to explain the used terminology.
>>
>> Also, references such as .phpp are used throughout the document to
>> indicate a particular type of source file rather than an actual file
>> extension. As such I would recommend moving your terminology section to
>> right underneath abstract. This would improve the readability.
>>
>
> Hmm I see your point. =A0Ok I'll update that langauge next time I can fin=
d a
> spare moment.
>
> So aside from that, what are your thoughts? =A0In addition to feedback on=
 the
> wording itself, I'd also be interested in hearing your thoughts on the
> actual amended proposal itself. =A0Does the new script type alleviate you=
r
> main concerns about frameworks (keeping in mind that a compromise is a
> solution that neither party likes but both parties can live with)? =A0Wha=
t do
> you think about the require/include syntax suggestions? =A0Should it be
> comma-delinated or use "as" instead? =A0Etc.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Kris
>



--=20
Tom Boutell
P'unk Avenue
215 755 1330
punkave.com
window.punkave.com