On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 12:46:28 PM UTC-6, Pedro Cordeiro wrote: > > I understand the reasoning now. It saddens me a little (as an end user) > that I still won't be able to have truly agnostic implementations that > depend on a container (because I need to set the entries, after all, so > I'll need adapters for each specific implementation), but I understand that > under FIG 2.0, the purpose is to facilitate interoperability between the > frameworks themselves, and the current scope decision makes sense under > that philosophy. >
On the bright side, there's a "yet" attached to that "still". :) > The metadoc is complete enough, indeed. I'm the one to blame here, my > initial skimming of the documentation for PSR11 missed the section about > the scope and the link to the relevant discussion. > We've all read through things too fast to catch the details we're looking for. Nothing wrong with being human. :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/55ed52d5-8d35-4174-b8de-81d68a2f1c75%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
