On 25 Apr, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Tom Boutell <t...@punkave.com> wrote: > >> * 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. >> > > Did you read the whole RFC? Please refer to the "Naming Conventions" > section. It addresses this explicitly. > > Are you saying that section wasn't sufficiently clear or did you just miss > it? > I think what he means is that the abstract section should be, well, abstract. Currently it appears more detailed than it should be by referring to file extensions on the let go. I would phrase that section in a way that doesn't rely on another section to explain the used terminology. Also, references such as .phpp are used throughout the document to indicate a particular type of source file rather than an actual file extension. As such I would recommend moving your terminology section to right underneath abstract. This would improve the readability. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
