Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121396
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJpLVh1P0kTneo+chFEdp2oCmSKNpgpDxSXd3atv9OHKejABgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9d5388fa-a5a5-4fa5-81ff-16f6670f80b6@gmail.com> <CAJpLVh39RUuqPKp=B4LJGfsVhZNHQGQFVTBcmgdyuJffmRvzPg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJpLVh39RUuqPKp=B4LJGfsVhZNHQGQFVTBcmgdyuJffmRvzPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:46:25 -0300
Message-ID: <CADK1yX+4gVp9BcfydEgW-RpvpCUcAK8+bBQomfWPbnfaxtm_wA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Olle_H=C3=A4rstedt?= <olleharstedt@gmail.com>
Cc: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b935db0607fddfa6"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Previous discussions about generics syntax only?
From: deleugyn@gmail.com (Deleu)

--000000000000b935db0607fddfa6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 4:14=E2=80=AFAM Olle H=C3=A4rstedt <olleharstedt@gm=
ail.com>
wrote:

> 2023-10-17 21:39 GMT+02:00, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>:
> > On 16/10/2023 15:08, Olle H=C3=A4rstedt wrote:
> >> Hello internals,
> >>
> >> Was there a previous discussion about the pros/cons of adding only the
> >> syntax needed for generics, but not the functionality? So static
> >> analyzers could use it, instead of docblocks. I looked at externals.io
> >> but couldn't find anything specific.
> >
> >
> > Hi Olle,
> >
> > Since I haven't seen it expressed quite this way in the previous
> > discussion, I'd like to highlight what I think is a major downside to
> > this approach, at least as commonly proposed:
> >
> > Using the same syntax for type information that is guaranteed to be tru=
e
> > (existing run-time checks) and type information that is "advisory only"
> > (new checks for optional static analysis) means users can no longer hav=
e
> > confidence in that type information.
> >
> > This is one of the interesting things about the compromise over scalar
> > types - if you see a declaration "function foo(int $bar) { ... }", you
> > *know* that $bar will be an int at the start of every invocation of tha=
t
> > function, regardless of which mode the calling code uses. I think addin=
g
> > exceptions to that certainty would be a bad direction for the language.
> >
> > On the other hand, I can see a "third way": if the problem with current
> > static analysis conventions is that they have to be parsed out of a
> > string-based docblock, we can provide *dedicated* syntax, without
> > unifying it with the standard type syntax. For instance, some of the
> > earlier discussions around introducing attributes suggested reflection
> > expose the AST of the attributes arguments, rather than the resolved
> > expressions, allowing them to act a bit like Rust's "hygienic macros".
> > If that was added as an optional mode, you might be able to do somethin=
g
> > like this:
> >
> > #[RawAttribute]
> > class GenericType {
> >      public function __construct(AST\Node $typeInfo) { ... }
> > }
> >
> > function foo(#[GenericType(int|float)] array $foo) {
> >      // array is the type guaranteed by the language
> >      // static analysis libraries can get the GenericType attribute fro=
m
> > reflection and receive an AST representing the type constraint int|floa=
t
> > }
>
> Not sure readability is improved here compared to existing @template
> annotations. ;)
>
> Olle
>

I won't be participating much about this discussion because I lack
expertise to add too much. I just wanted to voice a small (and defeated)
minority of PHP developers that don't want/care for Generics. I've been
working with Typescript lately and I see generics only being useful for
library code and even then when I end up writing some valid Generics stuff,
Typescript verbosity becomes so bloated that it invalidates the added-value
of the functionality.

I truly can't understand how Generics is the most requested PHP feature so
I will just assume I will have to live with it one day, but mixing it with
Attributes Syntax seems to be a recipe to make it as bad (or worse) than
the experience of using Generics in Typescript.


--=20
Marco Deleu

--000000000000b935db0607fddfa6--