* The RFC starts off immediately talking about file extensions, but the actual implementation proposed doesn't rely on file extensions or suggest any enforcement of them. That disparity should be addressed for clarity.
* The RFC quotes an entire discussion with a lot of harsh language about coding practices that are currently considered standard in most MVC frameworks, including the original message you were responding to (which happened to be mine). I am not sure you intended to leave all that in. In general that discussion contradicts the work you've done elsewhere in the RFC to propose both .phpp and .phpf. On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I finally found some time today to update the RFC based on discussions > here. Please have a look and let me know if I missed anything or if > there's anything else that needs clarifying: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpp > > > I also want to know if this is sufficient to satisfy some of the concerns > that have been raised about being able to implement this into existing > frameworks that use a more "tangled" architecture. > > Thanks! =) > > --Kris -- Tom Boutell P'unk Avenue 215 755 1330 punkave.com window.punkave.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
