got it. thanks! On Aug 18, 2014, at 11:36 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
> Hi Andi, > > 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 > > Thanks. Dmitry. > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Andi Gutmans <a...@zend.com> wrote: > Hi Nikita, > > I reviewed the AST RFC on my way to vote but there was something that wasn’t > 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’m 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’re 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....@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 > >
