IMHO, both parts can be separated. My personal opinion: the require_path with the php mode only can be useful, a mime type or extension for these files too, but I'm not sure about removing "<?php". Maybe splitting it, the first part can be approved sooner than the second, or maybe the entire RFC would not be approved because the second.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Tom Boutell <t...@punkave.com> wrote: > An important clarification: the RFC has two parts, NOT two options. > Yasuo Ohgaki made many edits to the RFC before deciding to create his > own RFC. He backed out most of his edits but somewhere along the line > he introduced the words "Option 1" and "Option 2" for two things that > are meant to go tegether. The intention is to have both the new > functionality (the require_path keyword, or whatever that evolves > into) AND a strongly encouraged naming convention for PHP files of the > two types (see my original draft). > > I have corrected the RFC to read as intended. > > I'll be updating it with a second version shortly but wanted to clear > up this confusion first. > > (I think it would be best for RFCs to have a single author of group of > authors who are in agreement about the intent of the RFC. Proposing an > alternative RFC, as Yasuo Ohgaki is now doing, is a much less > confusing way to put forward a concept the original author does not > agree with.) > > -- > Tom Boutell > P'unk Avenue > 215 755 1330 > punkave.com > window.punkave.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Atenciosamente, Rafael Kassner
