Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76731
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DBD5ACA0-F06A-4A14-9419-E9233A8EB178@zend.com>
References: <CAF+90c_M7nKiVLYT0vWaq8wg==Yz0ZZC1V_ke=t71rpWqKPepA@mail.gmail.com>
	<DBD5ACA0-F06A-4A14-9419-E9233A8EB178@zend.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:30:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKxcST-egi66FqF65abZ_o9tVfMD9Yf7xZoG-0R-HvVZoRiERw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c22d8a539d6005010f9bce
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Abstract Syntax Tree
From: dragoonis@gmail.com (Paul Dragoonis)

--001a11c22d8a539d6005010f9bce
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> wrote:

> Hi Nikita,
>
> I reviewed the AST RFC on my way to vote but there was something that
> wasn=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99m having a bit of a hard ti=
me
> 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=E2=80=99re trying to solve for =
two
> separate items in one RFC.
> Any BC breaks here we think could bite us?
>

Hi Nikita,

I second some of Andi's concerns about behavioural changes, some things
working from right-to-left and not left-to-right. Are these things that we
can adapt the AST part or tweak another part to make this more consistent
with previous versions of PHP. Improving consistency when changing
underlying parts is a good migration technique. Facebook done this when
they implemented HHMV, they didn't fix bugs but made a like-for-like stable
copy before tackling improvements.

Do you feel it's an important goal to keep consistency from PHP 5.x to PHP
7, with regards to the behaviour of syntax parsing/behaviour, or do you
feel that you can live with these non-BC changes?

Many thanks,
Paul



>
> 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!
> >
> > I've opened the vote on the Abstract Syntax Tree RFC:
> >
> >    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_syntax_tree#vote
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nikita
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--001a11c22d8a539d6005010f9bce--