Rasmus
This is my worry as well. Especially when it comes to opcode cache > support. Most of the patches I see these days completely ignore the > opcode cache side of things which needs to change. For any large > language-level change, any implementation that doesn't also include an > APC diff, or at least a very complete explanation of how it will be > generally supported by opcode caches just isn't complete. > I see this as the exact wrong way a language should progress. The core should not be bound to extensions, but the other way around. Otherwise it creates this weird meta state... While I do see your point, to me it's less of an issue that it breaks APC, and more of an issue that APC's functionality is not in core. I mean if an extension is SO important, that we can't release language features without updating that extension, then it's a sign that it shouldn't be an extension in the first place. We wouldn't have this issue if APC was in core. As it is now, having it as an external project just creates weird muddied waters... So I guess my point is rather than passing the message that people making language changes need to think about APC, I think the message should be that APC needs to get into core (and should be made an initiative)... As it stands now, it's just going to keep causing pain... My $0.02 at least... Anthony
