Newsgroups: php.internals,php.standards
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76404 php.standards:362
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain adamharvey.name designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: adam@adamharvey.name
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH5RqGsQ2T=fmEgnSKOBn_0h4O2EEThvzpVhZq0a_+n_iA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAESVnVr0J5qyAc-L0Yt_3Ahab5LVgtUErgoKsSPvgwe=QzppTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH-PCH4bRSGrgicicxtNcQVUBM3gW-TBP1_3RVukw-0=TUpc3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVq0Y2dgSQzpTdt1L5tyWRM_rxVhajujOatWyrH2u_j=5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAH-PCH5RqGsQ2T=fmEgnSKOBn_0h4O2EEThvzpVhZq0a_+n_iA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:36:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CADajX4B6LAt5jp=WxENhwxG9kJbzdEpNLp2FtD+RhEHDGYpiBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
Cc: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, standards@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [STANDARDS] Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Disallow multiple default blocks
 in a single switch statement
From: aharvey@php.net (Adam Harvey)

On 6 August 2014 12:32, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:
>> >
>> Did we agree on that?  The lang spec was originally written to 5.6 to
>> have a relatively stable target, but (in my mind at least) was meant
>> to track master as we move the language forward.  Was there a
>> discussion about branching the langspec repo for versions?
>
>
> maybe that was just my impression.
> I'm not sure what would be the best solution, but if we don't version the
> spec, then when we introduce BC breaks or simply new features in a new
> version which is in turn get's added to the spec, that would make the older
> php version's(from any implementation) not being compliant with the spec.
> would be nice checking out how other spec-driven languages manage this
> problem (I know that at least java has separate spec for each major
> version), but I don't think that a single spec can exists which allows
> alternative implementations to say that they comform me spec while the
> reference implementation and the spec can still change/evolve after the
> initial release.

I guess I (possibly) misinterpreted that too, which is why I changed
the original bug report to be a spec bug rather than a ZE bug. I too
was under the impression that the spec right now would document 5.6 as
it actually is (rather than being aspirational), and then future
versions would be separate documents (branches, presumably) that would
be updated as part of the RFC process when changes were made.

Adam, who has just come to the horrible realisation that this is going
to require someone to write an RFC. Dibs not me.