On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:32 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? >
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....@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 > >
