Clarify the scope of this PER in the meta document #63
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
* Add goal of incorporating PSR-1 style guidelines * Allow for potential future change to PSR-1 to specify PascalCase class constants * Remove vague and meaningless language from non-goals sub-section
samdark
approved these changes
Feb 27, 2023
Crell
reviewed
Feb 27, 2023
Comment on lines
+64
to
+65
| It is not the intention of this PER to substantially or arbitrarily alter coding style guidelines found in PSR-1 and PSR-12. | ||
| It will not change anything stipulated in PSR-1 that concerns technical interoperability or runtime behaviour. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| It is not the intention of this PER to substantially or arbitrarily alter coding style guidelines found in PSR-1 and PSR-12. | |
| It will not change anything stipulated in PSR-1 that concerns technical interoperability or runtime behaviour. | |
| * It is not the intention of this PER to arbitrarily alter coding style guidelines found in PSR-1 and PSR-12. | |
| * It is not the intention of this PER to change any elements of PSR-1 that concern technical interoperability or runtime behavior. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I perceive this suggestion as less firm on not changing runtime elements of PSR-1 and not making large changes (measured by number of rules touched), only a single issue we've identified as possibly in scope. I'm concerned that may make it less pallatable to anyone on the fence about this change. Wdyt?
TimWolla
reviewed
Feb 27, 2023
Co-authored-by: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
|
This was superseded by #64. I'd guess a lot of these changes will be obsolete once we get past 2.0.0 so I'm going to close this for now. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
This pull request:
Why
Excluding 1.0 as a clone of PSR-12, this is effectively the first substantial release of any PER. I feel it is important we're upfront and properly describe the scope of this PER, as was discussed even prior to the 1.0 vote. I do not want it perceived as scope creep to edit this section in a later version.
This change would explicitly allow us to begin adding PSR-1 style rules to this PER immediately in 2.0.x and more clearly advise readers where else to look (ie PSR-1) and not look (ie PSR-12) if they can't yet find a style rule relevant to their code. Currently, the scope section says the spec will only contain additions and clarifications to PSR-12. Arguably you could consider repeating PSR-1 rules as a clarification to PSR-12 but this new wording is unambiguous.
We have previously discussed the potential to recommand PascalCase class constants in this PER. This change is a bit of a roundabout way of saying if we ever do, we'd do that by issuing an errata to PSR-1 optionally allowing PascalCase class constants, then edit this PSR to recommend/require them instead of UPPER_CASE. It also attempts to maintain the non-goal of revisiting PSR-1/PSR-12 decisions without good reason, while allowing us to when such good reason exists. I'm not sure how successful I was in communicating either of these things, so your feedback is most welcome.