Re: [PSR-11] Review: should the container ALWAYS return the same instance?

It's important to reiterate that the implementation of whether services share or not is exactly that - an implementation detail. For me, this is not something that the spec should concern itself. I would love to see the existing container-interop standard considered more here too. The current

Re: [PSR-11] Characters allowed in service IDs

This, as in the shared containers thread, is surely an implementation detail rather than part of the standard? It would be a shame to limit use of the standard by restricting which character sets are acceptable based on nominal research by people in the western world (I mean this in terms of

Re: [PSR-11] Characters allowed in service IDs

To reiterate what I said before: I am mostly suggesting a *lower bound*, not *upper bound*. As PSR-6 states: " A string of at least one character that uniquely identifies a cached item. Implementing libraries MUST support keys consisting of the characters A-Z, a-z, 0-9, _, and . in any order

Re: [PSR-11] Exceptions

> So why even mention it then? I think it's because most implementations are not aware of this difference, but it's important. It doesn't automatically mean that the interface must reflect the DependencyNotFoundException. @throws FooException means "it's your possible issue, take care of it".

Re: [CC][Nomination] Lukas Kahwe Smith

Thanks Fabien & Lukas. http://bit.ly/cc-election-candidates -- Michael C On 10 November 2016 at 04:30, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > > On 10 Nov 2016, at 01:13, Fabien Potencier > wrote: > > > > I hereby nominate Lukas Smith for the Core

Re: [CC][Nomination] David Négrier

Thanks David & Michiel. http://bit.ly/cc-election-candidates -- Michael C On 9 November 2016 at 16:43, David Négrier wrote: > Woot! Thanks a lot Michiel. I obviously accept your nomination. :) > > -- > David. > > Le mercredi 9 novembre 2016 20:43:01 UTC+1, Michiel