On 6 August 2014 12:32, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Sara Golemon <poll...@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. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
