Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76708
Return-Path: <andi@zend.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 14884 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2014 18:12:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 19 Aug 2014 18:12:51 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=andi@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=andi@zend.com; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.192.169 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: andi@zend.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.192.169 mail-pd0-f169.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.192.169] ([209.85.192.169:42739] helo=mail-pd0-f169.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 4E/25-16275-1A393F35 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:12:50 -0400
Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y10so10220880pdj.14
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
         :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to;
        bh=lHP7K3uMmd1FxHiakztMLZypi9qQRTLS36je7PpYeBQ=;
        b=JKxncldLV3fNeI9YU0nxoTmRC0uUq0n8V/kllNJCV0m/KkFGnHWBrPVFo4/8LgdsIs
         abSLn0NdkDDHjcLwmqmgzW8NcnRN9i7XEHR1O/Z9XPGFXZe7nY5QgPuXCU5cDUiducEI
         ynHFMuNSLpyXKlnmGQwvg2C4YKEB6NgGVAhvCyzc2X66ASaVSNqQWk9vL5WVhT8E4k0b
         wMIRQkQl5adcXOZXzWpu3fw1p533t0+twQ8iZwboqEbnttAg0QHpZQD7oAwuZ2HehieA
         jLryQKiJD6GVDKGLo54BrNXdKIhVut6kX0ny4NxZ8c3aiLJp0rtwOjPofS2dtcCT/PwZ
         qtRw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlcPpA30uaJZ6MHIiykd3UNskqCi8Q4KWoOD9ZU7/W8VPFxQ5wWf+XHhcKG1stsblQKmZqMx0MmKQ7YKMgI52jLATI2T03qrDsyqJ7a4VcQXpCUvr7w3siq/TGxkGoHdyRfI6fi
X-Received: by 10.70.130.35 with SMTP id ob3mr22384933pdb.149.1408471966930;
        Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.16.95] (us-gw1.zend.com. [63.205.162.116])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qq1sm19918315pbc.71.2014.08.19.11.12.45
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C2409E53-E7F7-4AA1-923A-403B1240F3E5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
In-Reply-To: <CA+9eiLv9c4QWz19NpK5QXX-oz-HCSa-VyreCKKy6_gzBQ07xPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:12:45 -0700
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 430164765.06655-272f3aef21dcddd99f9b3444a8164379
Message-ID: <60A833B8-C544-45C5-BCFB-2D999BE2BACC@zend.com>
References: <CAF+90c_M7nKiVLYT0vWaq8wg==Yz0ZZC1V_ke=t71rpWqKPepA@mail.gmail.com> <DBD5ACA0-F06A-4A14-9419-E9233A8EB178@zend.com> <CA+9eiLv9c4QWz19NpK5QXX-oz-HCSa-VyreCKKy6_gzBQ07xPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Abstract Syntax Tree
From: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans)

--Apple-Mail=_C2409E53-E7F7-4AA1-923A-403B1240F3E5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252

got it. thanks!

On Aug 18, 2014, at 11:36 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:

> Hi Andi,
>=20
> We already discussed most of semantic changes introduced in AST patch.
> Most of them came from another approved RFC =
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/uniform_variable_syntax
>=20
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>=20
>=20
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> wrote:
> Hi Nikita,
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> Any insight would be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> Andi
>=20
> On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:41 AM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> > Hi internals!
> >
> > I've opened the vote on the Abstract Syntax Tree RFC:
> >
> >    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_syntax_tree#vote
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nikita
>=20
>=20
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>=20
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_C2409E53-E7F7-4AA1-923A-403B1240F3E5--