Re: [PHP-DEV] language specification project
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Hi, About the language specification project: The goal I see for this project is coming out with a document that is useful for users. Something that they could hold in their hands, and from reading it, they'd know whether something is supposed to work or not. Now, I'm sure that it's possible that during the course of the project we'll find inconsistencies in the implementation that need to be fixed, but as a guideline the spec should describe the implementation. We really don't need the kind of stuff that were with C++, with 80% conformance and 99% conformance and all that headache. -- I agree, in part. I think however we should document the syntax as it ought to be, ie, some of the stuff is not yet realized like what sascha was reffering to as far as the zend-cvs discussion (which I didn't really follow too well). Or, obviously, bugs should not be at all considered in the specification itself. (discussed mid-november 2000) This project seems rather dead to me. Though, I think it should be continued. Some work was alread been done. I would like to try to reanimate it. I think, like Sacha I think, that a spec should be quite exact and precise. Zend was made without a proper specification, something they try to hammer all first-year students at my university you should NEVER do that. It is very annoying to have to specify all quirks, I think it is most practical to document it the way it should be, and then note whereever it goes wrong. Most of these 'where it goes wrong's are in fact quirks, that normal users shouldn't meet, and if they do, it works so strange, it can't be documented in a easy way. (what do you think of this one: $a[5] = 'abc'; $foo = $a[5]; $b = $a; // should copy the array $a[5] = 'boe'; echo $b[5]; // boe... Array elements that have a reference are not copyd, but a reference is made... bah! ) And the target shouldn't be the user at first. Then, IMO the next step would be to make zend comply to the specs, finally making version 4.1 as some people seem to want. And THEN you can publish the spec. With the current quirky behaviour, PHP won't be seen as a well and neatly specified and LOGIC language, but rather as some potpourri (mixup) of other languages. But before I start, I want to know your opinions nowadays... And, I really need (=want) to know whether Zend WILL go comply to the new spec. About what the spec exactly will be: I, and anyone who wants, just make it based on their own views. First of course the framework should be made ready, so concurrent work can be done more easily. I think adapting a bit to the structure of the phpdoc documentation isn't such a bad idea. Regulary it is posted to phpdev, and then you can flame it, or whatever. And then some decission needs to be made, consensus seems hard, but hey, lets add the rule that if consensus isn't reached I'll decide ;) (by the way, I came onto this trying to document the language properly, but that is really hard to do... if you want it to have as exact as possible) (BTW2: zend-cvs discussion? where are the archives? and is there web-cvs for zend somewhere?) SUMMARY: - spec framework made (sacha?, myself?) - spec made, as how it should work, so close as possible to PHP, but in case of quirks, just a logic behaviour. (Anyone who wants. Myself included) WITH notes where zend does something strange. - extensive discussion on phpdev - zend adapted - spec published along with new version of PHP/zend I think the important thing is just to have the language specified and thoroughly documented, with BNF and all. Let quirks be quriks for now, a specification process should not fix them, but put them all on the radar for future fixing. There's always someone who relies on a quirk. If you mix the spec/doc and fixing processes you're in deep shit, that's something the first-year university students should learn, too. ;-) Anyway, this is a process Zeev Andi would have to be deeply involved in, even though I think it's best to have the actual writing done by someone else, to have an extra audit point to come up with the questions implementors sometimes forget. On the other hand, Zeev and Andi may not want to prioritize their time on this, since a real language specification would clear the path for alternate parser implementations. - Stig -- Stig Sæther Bakken [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fast Search Transfer ASA, Trondheim, Norway -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] language specification project
At 15:58 21/5/2001, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote: I think the important thing is just to have the language specified and thoroughly documented, with BNF and all. Let quirks be quriks for now, a specification process should not fix them, but put them all on the radar for future fixing. There's always someone who relies on a quirk. If you mix the spec/doc and fixing processes you're in deep shit, that's something the first-year university students should learn, too. ;-) Anyway, this is a process Zeev Andi would have to be deeply involved in, even though I think it's best to have the actual writing done by someone else, to have an extra audit point to come up with the questions implementors sometimes forget. On the other hand, Zeev and Andi may not want to prioritize their time on this, since a real language specification would clear the path for alternate parser implementations. Overall, I don't think I can agree with that; I'm very much in favour of the language spec effort, but instead of going the 'official ANSI-committee' approach, I was always in favour of a good documentation of what PHP is, in practice. That's what people were missing. An effort to create yet-another-language-specification is not something I consider to be interesting nor beneficial. I don't really worry about Zend Engine clones (people know enough about the PHP syntax today, they don't have to wait for me or Andi to document it, if they wanted to create such a clone). I think that having such clones would not be very beneficial for PHP to say the least, but as I said, I don't think it's related to the language spec project. The reasons Andi and I don't invest too much time in this project today are: - We simply don't have too much time, and the time we have is better spent solving real world issues. - We don't consider the project as it turned out to be all that useful in real world terms (i.e., aiming at is some formal document that theoretical language implementors would use, but effectively, nobody really will). I think that's the main reason the project ended up lingering to death - because it had very little real world use. Zeev -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] language specification project
huge snip Stig wrote: I think the important thing is just to have the language specified and thoroughly documented, with BNF and all. Let quirks be quriks for now, a specification process should not fix them, but put them all on the radar for future fixing. There's always someone who relies on a quirk. If you mix the spec/doc and fixing processes you're in deep shit, that's something the first-year university students should learn, too. ;-) Agree, the spec should document the current language, with notes in special syntax where things go weird. Anyway, this is a process Zeev Andi would have to be deeply involved in, even though I think it's best to have the actual writing done by someone else, to have an extra audit point to come up with the questions implementors sometimes forget. Good idea, of course. Anyway, it doesn't seem ZeevAndi WANT to write it themselves, so this would happen anyway. On the other hand, Zeev and Andi may not want to prioritize their time on this, since a real language specification would clear the path for alternate parser implementations. For this, I'm switching to Zeev's mail: Overall, I don't think I can agree with that; I'm very much in favour of the language spec effort, but instead of going the 'official ANSI-committee' approach, I was always in favour of a good documentation of what PHP is, in practice. That's what people were missing. I came up with it, while trying to make that documentation. As I said in my intro-message to the group, I planned to make the documentation quite exact, so it COULD be rewritten in BNF easily, but actually I was going to write it in some human readable form: the goal of documentation is after all be be human readable. But while working on it, I noticed that it is quite hard to write human readable documentation based on the sources. You need a intermediate, that is exact, but yet well readable for ppl having the knowledge of parsers and languages. In fact, that IS the specification. So I just view on it as the link between sources and documentation for the ordinary PHP-developper. There are also developpers out there who really want an exact documentation, and when the documentation is somewhat ambigious (something you'll never be able to prevent), there is always the spec, which is a lot more accessible than the sources (largly uncommented... :-( ) And a second advantage of the spec is that make reflection easier: you will notice the quirks, while with the sources, you really have no idea what is inconsistent. About php-clones: I agree, it is very bad to have just clones like that. But when there IS a good specification, there's nothing agains it IMO. But anyway, this is offtopic, Zend is okay, and I have the trust that it will change things when possible and it doesn't break BC. And if they don't, and only then, another implementation MIGHT become interesting. But that's, as I cannot emphasise enough, not the goal nor intention. The reasons Andi and I don't invest too much time in this project today are: - We simply don't have too much time, and the time we have is better spent solving real world issues. - We don't consider the project as it turned out to be all that useful in real world terms (i.e., aiming at is some formal document that theoretical language implementors would use, but effectively, nobody really will). I think that's the main reason the project ended up lingering to death - because it had very little real world use. It WILL improve zend, and it is IMO the only way to get a decent and correct documentation of for example references. It doesn't work as documented, although it seems logic what is documented. Because there is no real public audience, there is no need to make it accessible for everyone, it just needs to be understood by people like zend developers, and parser-writers. That eases the project of course a bit. Greetz Jeroen -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] language specification project
On Sun, 20 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This project seems rather dead to me. Though, I think it should be continued. Some work was alread been done. Yeah, it should be very nice to have a spec, so that others can implement an alternative for the Zend engine (/me hides) I would like to try to reanimate it. I think, like Sacha I think, that a spec should be quite exact and precise. It's Sascha, not Sacha. Zend was made without a proper specification, something they try to hammer all first-year students at my university you should NEVER do that. And how do you know this? Did you ask Zeev or Andi about this? Afterall, Zend is a new implementation for the language that was in PHP/FI and PHP3. It does comply (almost) with these two versions. It is very annoying to have to specify all quirks, I think it is most practical to document it the way it should be, and then note whereever it goes wrong. Sure, but if you want to change these 'quirks' you are gonna break lots of scripts that rely on those. Not an option I would think. snip Then, IMO the next step would be to make zend comply to the specs, finally making version 4.1 as some people seem to want. 'to make zend comply to the specs' Are you going to break the backwards compability? And THEN you can publish the spec. With the current quirky behaviour, PHP won't be seen as a well and neatly specified and LOGIC language, but rather as some potpourri (mixup) of other languages. But before I start, I want to know your opinions nowadays... And, I really need (=want) to know whether Zend WILL go comply to the new spec. My guess is no here, BC is the word. snip (by the way, I came onto this trying to document the language properly, but that is really hard to do... if you want it to have as exact as possible) (BTW2: zend-cvs discussion? where are the archives? and is there web-cvs for zend somewhere?) Zend CVS needs no discussion on it's own, all discussion is done on php-dev. SUMMARY: - spec framework made (sacha?, myself?) - spec made, as how it should work, so close as possible to PHP, but in case of quirks, just a logic behaviour. (Anyone who wants. Myself included) WITH notes where zend does something strange. I think it would be better to document the current language as is, make notes about the quirks, see what can be done about those. And if there can be done something about these quirks without messing stuff up, change it in Zend (if it is possible). regards, Derick Rethans - PHP: Scripting the Web - www.php.net - [EMAIL PROTECTED] SRM: Site Resource Manager - www.vl-srm.net - -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PHP-DEV] language specification project
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Sun, 20 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This project seems rather dead to me. Though, I think it should be continued. Some work was alread been done. Yeah, it should be very nice to have a spec, so that others can implement an alternative for the Zend engine (/me hides) I didn't mention that indeed. On purpose, by the way. It needs ZeevAndi's help on some issues... I would like to try to reanimate it. I think, like Sacha I think, that a spec should be quite exact and precise. It's Sascha, not Sacha. Sascha, I'm sorry. Zend was made without a proper specification, something they try to hammer all first-year students at my university you should NEVER do that. And how do you know this? Did you ask Zeev or Andi about this? Afterall, Zend is a new implementation for the language that was in PHP/FI and PHP3. It does comply (almost) with these two versions. If php4 WAS made after a spec, then it existed, and then Sascha wouldn't have made effort to make one. Simple deduction. And referring to php/fi or php3 isn't also really referring to a spec, they are also just implementations, not a specification. It is very annoying to have to specify all quirks, I think it is most practical to document it the way it should be, and then note whereever it goes wrong. Sure, but if you want to change these 'quirks' you are gonna break lots of scripts that rely on those. Not an option I would think. NO, it really isn't the purpose to break current behaviour. IMO it is very well possible to keep it BC. I was thinking, that some flags could be introduced, to make it more strict, and thus enforce better coding. But the usual behaviour should, of course, be BC. snip Then, IMO the next step would be to make zend comply to the specs, finally making version 4.1 as some people seem to want. 'to make zend comply to the specs' Are you going to break the backwards compability? No. Maybe in the future, but currently certainly not. And THEN you can publish the spec. With the current quirky behaviour, PHP won't be seen as a well and neatly specified and LOGIC language, but rather as some potpourri (mixup) of other languages. But before I start, I want to know your opinions nowadays... And, I really need (=want) to know whether Zend WILL go comply to the new spec. My guess is no here, BC is the word. And what if both is possible, comply to new spec, AND BC? (by the way, I came onto this trying to document the language properly, but that is really hard to do... if you want it to have as exact as possible) (BTW2: zend-cvs discussion? where are the archives? and is there web-cvs for zend somewhere?) Zend CVS needs no discussion on it's own, all discussion is done on php-dev. But that is very cumbersome to spit :(, since all those bugs are in between... But okay, I know where to look. SUMMARY: - spec framework made (sacha?, myself?) - spec made, as how it should work, so close as possible to PHP, but in case of quirks, just a logic behaviour. (Anyone who wants. Myself included) WITH notes where zend does something strange. I think it would be better to document the current language as is, make notes about the quirks, see what can be done about those. And if there can be done something about these quirks without messing stuff up, change it in Zend (if it is possible). I tried, for the normal documentation. But now on references, and also errors, I notice that it is very difficult. But I can't just write a wish-documentation, as it would document a version of PHP that is not yet existent... regards, Derick Rethans Greetz, Jeroen -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
