Re: "Mission Statement"

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote: > Well, I don't favor the Microsoft way of raising the barrier > for competition arbitrarily. > > In the remote case that someone forks PHP, it should be in > our interest to convince the community that there is an open > independent group of well-known people who maintain control > over the language evolvement. > > We are now in a position where we can set the standard for > PHP. In the long run, this will help us to convince users of > the continuity of PHP. We cannot ensure that with the current > structure where the term "PHP language" is defined in the > context of the respective implementation. > > In the short to mid term, there are a couple of interesting > projects which are currently virtually impossible to do > because of the lack of a PHP language standard (i.e. a gcc > front-end; engine with coroutines). Those projects would > ultimately benefit PHP and that is why I'm pushing this. I like all 4 paragraphs. :) > Well, we should agree on the structure of this approach. > > IMHO, The PHP Language Specification must not contain > implementation details. > > Based upon that, there can be a separate document detailing > implementation-dependent behaviour. > > What do you think of that? Yes, implementation specific details should be kept out of the spec. -Andrei Politics is for the moment, an equation is for eternity. -- Albert Einstein