Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75915 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 35886 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2014 23:04:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Jul 2014 23:04:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.216 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.216 imap10-3.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.216] ([192.64.116.216:38415] helo=imap10-3.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 72/EA-21666-21EEEC35 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:04:50 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0B32400C2; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:04:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap10.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap10.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id yasuMe12B5yN; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:04:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.0.15] (unknown [90.210.122.167]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0F852400C3; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:04:44 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:03:47 +0100 Cc: Larry Garfield , PHP internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <53CEE7A8.6030607@garfieldtech.com> <2BAAF697-C78A-4728-B78D-E5674D2C2CEA@ajf.me> To: Sara Golemon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP Language Specification From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 23 Jul 2014, at 00:01, Sara Golemon wrote: > Our RFCs tend to have implementations attached to them (in someone's > personal fork). IMO we should make creating the spec PR part of the > RFC acceptance process, and that they should be landed together. I > agree it doesn't make much sense to define unimplemented behavior as > the standard. I would very much agree with that. An advantage of adding to the spec = with the RFC is people can check how well the patch lines up with the = spec, too. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/