Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76677
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.220.47 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_M7nKiVLYT0vWaq8wg==Yz0ZZC1V_ke=t71rpWqKPepA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 19:32:51 -0700
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <DBD5ACA0-F06A-4A14-9419-E9233A8EB178@zend.com>
References: <CAF+90c_M7nKiVLYT0vWaq8wg==Yz0ZZC1V_ke=t71rpWqKPepA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Abstract Syntax Tree
From: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans)

Hi Nikita,

I reviewed the AST RFC on my way to vote but there was something that =
wasn=92t clear to me.
This patch introduces some semantic/behavioral changes in addition to =
the AST.
Are these as a side-effect of how AST was implemented? Or are they =
unrelated to the AST patch?
I think some of them make sense but I=92m having a bit of a hard time =
separating out the benefits of the AST (which I really like) and making =
other changes to semantics w/o really understanding if they are =
side-effects and we have no choice vs. we=92re trying to solve for two =
separate items in one RFC.
Any BC breaks here we think could bite us?

Any insight would be much appreciated.
Thanks!
Andi

On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:41 AM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi internals!
>=20
> I've opened the vote on the Abstract Syntax Tree RFC:
>=20
>    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_syntax_tree#vote
>=20
> Thanks,
> Nikita