<[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 Zeev&Andi'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]
