Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66536
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 209.85.220.180 cause and error)
Message-ID: <5138CBBC.8030409@lerdorf.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:17:48 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130221 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
CC: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
 Laruence <laruence@php.net>,
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <435a322ccb14090d3bcf6bf8a110396d@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU56QE=uMFcE+xe2vSzwCH_9KGFs33bJCySWpsx6Ed7k3w@mail.gmail.com> <CABBJUpds9XnOZC9gfDs8OHmoe6hTQosqe8qzmTtTX4Xg-JsT+Q@mail.gmail.com> <8944597477930141639@unknownmsgid> <CAEZPtU75+HZMcP+HUAEFGQ3R99g5_PsWJMd4OUkq+__s2CVc9w@mail.gmail.com> <1a0793107537dceb9cc67c616294ce76@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU73==PG7QXT61LRZ0TNFUmtN1B5kBpXP1Cjvg2sZighGw@mail.gmail.com> <5132FE98.5050201@lerdorf.com> <CAEZPtU668P3YTn9g8CZbavb0nz-ui6NDKP0pCEb-7zZE+Q8-VA@mail.gmail.com> <513316A1.1050109@lerdorf.com> <CAF+90c8G-dQHVgwbKL16kJmHjbJLMXai6bNS7TZjXT1OT+QBAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU5WPhWh_yhcnFvTFdgPKsSez2DikEqrC2qthwHGUUbhzw@mail.gmail.com> <5138C0FD.1010208@lerdorf.com> <CAAyV7nFLoC2nL+Usocwm6f-bTPP24Q7OU6R1gd7pM8qSGLLVTg@mail.gmail.com> <7faa70ac4ef59d9f7748b17de1d6892d@mail.gmail.com> <CAAyV7nHO7EcxMKaBSuxHuehC7p6a4NOE58zGHkFOvkfvjV4JJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nHO7EcxMKaBSuxHuehC7p6a4NOE58zGHkFOvkfvjV4JJw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution
From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf)

On 03/07/2013 09:01 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:

> So my proposal is to slow down for a minute and not call this RFC
> accepted or not until we can come to some consensus as to if it
> classifies as a language change or not... Better to clarify for the
> health of the project than to plow through and risk causing further
> strife...

And how do you propose we do that? Vote on it? Will that vote need 2/3
as well? I think most of us accepted that language-level changes meant
syntax changes. Things that add new features to the language itself.

For example, interned strings in 5.4 was a major change as well and it
broke a bunch of things. I don't think we even bothered with an RFC for
it much less a vote since it was a really worthwhile performance
improvement which didn't affect the language at all other than the fact
that it broke a bunch of things, but once we worked out the bugs and
opcode caches eventually figured out how to support it, it became
invisible to the user. I don't see how adding an opcode cache is any
different. In fact adding this opcode cache will have less of an effect
than interned strings did since it doesn't touch the internals of the
engine anywhere near as much.

-Rasmus