Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68100 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 55740 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2013 20:39:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Jul 2013 20:39:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.107 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.107 smtp107.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.107] ([108.166.43.107:39220] helo=smtp107.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id AC/E5-03322-1081FD15 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:39:30 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id DD69498150; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:39:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 46DEC980D8; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51DF17FD.5030401@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:39:25 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sara Golemon CC: Florin Patan , "RQuadling@gmail.com" , PHP internals References: <1372258135.2410.22.camel@guybrush> <51DF0CDD.7060108@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Request for comments - new PHP feature: return typing From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > 1) HHVM isn't just running FB. A number of sites have either already started using HHVM, or intend to soon. Were could I read about those? > 2) The "static compilation" description is grossly outdated information. I guess my knowledge about HHVM is a bit out of date, which is no wonder as I wasn't following latest developments for some time. Could you send a link where I (and everybody interested of course :) could read about the current state of affairs? > however, as with Generators, I think that we should endeavor to keep the > implementations close together by the most appropriate means. I don't > want two versions of PHP syntax. I don't think whatever HHVM does without input from PHP community should be any argument for any change in PHP. If it is good for PHP, it can stand on its own merit, if it's not, then the fact that HHVM team did it for some internal reasons that we do not know can not be an argument. If we want a common PHP syntax that will be followed by different implementations, it's a great idea, but it can not start with "we already did it, so you have to do it too". I don't want many versions of PHP syntax either, but I don't think HHVM team should be the one deciding how the one version looks like. If they use syntax that is good (I think this specific one is not, but that's beside the point, as it is only my personal opinion) it can and should be argued on its own merits, not on the argument that it is in HHVM. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227