> On 21 Aug 2016, at 22:28, Matthieu Napoli <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree in so far that we need to acknowledge that there will be PSRs > superseding previous PSRs and there will be PSRs that are incompatible to > previous PSRs. > > Hi Lukas, could you explain what incompatibilities you see? > > Just to be clear there is no plan to change any existing PSR. And there is no > plan to replace them with new PSRs that adopt the new convention. > And if a new PSR depends on another currently existing PSR, it will use the > existing names, not new (non-existing) ones. Example: PSR-15 should use > `RequestInterface`, it shouldn't use `Request` just because of the new > convention (because obviously it will not work: the interface does not exist > under that name). > The goal is not to break anything, if you see such a scenario let's discuss > it.
it was a general comment in reply to your general comment that past decision should not prevent is from doing something different in the future. regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith [email protected] -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/4780D36D-7FA1-4ED6-B367-C78F65E63F05%40pooteeweet.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
