Consolidate information from the three RFCs it is based on #11
Conversation
|
I've finally started doing some work on consolidating the content in these files - it would be helpful if you could have a look to make sure I didn't change the meaning. The original document used "should" as the RFC 2119 "MUST", which is rather unfortunate. I believe I have conveyed the original meaning though. Comments welcome! Once you're OK too, I'll put up a short RFC to ack/back this PR (and the ones for the other documents). |
coding-standards-and-naming.rst
Outdated
| or on GitHub. | ||
|
|
||
| Extensions may move between these three categories over time. ``hash`` and | ||
| ``json`` recently moved from "bundled" to "required" (though I believe |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Recently as of when? The example should fix a release in which the move happened, for clarity.
coding-standards-and-naming.rst
Outdated
|
|
||
| Extensions may move between these three categories over time. ``hash`` and | ||
| ``json`` recently moved from "bundled" to "required" (though I believe | ||
| extensions never move out of the "required" category). ``sodium`` and ``ffi`` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The parenthetical also seems too personal for a policy document.
derickr
force-pushed
the
consolidate-coding-standards
branch
from
a104093 to
8b81759
Compare
| For the Core/standard/spl extensions, the previous considerations on component | ||
| subdivision apply. The fact that string and array functions are not namespaced | ||
| does not preclude new namespaced components in these extensions. | ||
| extension that has historically been procedural, these MAY be namespaced. For |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This says MAY, but the original document says should. I don't necessarily disagree, but it diverges from the original meaning.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this line has changed? I only changed may to MAY in it:
extension that has historically been procedural, these may be namespaced. For
vs
extension that has historically been procedural, these MAY be namespaced. For
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was referring to:
Instead, these extensions should be considered as a collection of different components, and should be namespaced according to these.
It's a bit unclear whether this "should" refers to this the "according to" part, or the namespacing itself, i.e. whether we prefer namespaces over a category_ prefix.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But you're right anyway, the sentence was already there. I missed that.
No description provided.