Re: language specification project

<derick@php.net> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.30.0105202119580.1486-100000@mars.office.jdimedia.nl... > On Sun, 20 May 2001 jeroen@php.net 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