> On 21 Aug 2016, at 22:07, Matthieu Napoli <matth...@mnapoli.fr> wrote: > > The question of consistency with existing PSRs has been raised a lot. I don't > see that as a problem. > It's OK to move forward and change a convention if we want to, each PSR is > independent from the rest. Consistency for this is a very small detail > compared to developer experience, we shouldn't limit improvements for no > tangible reason.
I agree in so far that we need to acknowledge that there will be PSRs superseding previous PSRs and there will be PSRs that are incompatible to previous PSRs. But overall I have not seen any significant arguments from either side that would sway me in either direction and as such I would stick with the status quo. regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith sm...@pooteeweet.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/B32229E2-A372-4ED9-9596-727E61A2881B%40pooteeweet.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
