Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50309 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 13805 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2010 21:26:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Nov 2010 21:26:46 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 99.38.57.86 unknown Received: from [99.38.57.86] ([99.38.57.86:5405] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 40/FA-40885-49844EC4 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:26:45 -0500 Message-ID: <40.FA.40885.49844EC4@pb1.pair.com> To: internals@lists.php.net Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:26:46 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4CE3340F.6090304@sugarcrm.com> <87.0F.25421.F4933EC4@pb1.pair.com> <4CE339DF.1020605@sugarcrm.com> <4CE33D54.8000009@sugarcrm.com> <9F3127D3-54B8-427A-BC8F-1D8D3AD4E2DB@zend.com> <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A2C5A2BF5@il-ex2.zend.net> In-Reply-To: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A2C5A2BF5@il-ex2.zend.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Posted-By: 99.38.57.86 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations)supportdiscussion From: alecgorge@gmail.com (Alec) Now that's something we can agree on :D We can reduce the syntax added to simply being the attribute tag before the standard syntax for a function call/class creation. This means functions can be attributes too (as if that is useful...)! This is a function being used as an attribute attribute functionAttr("test") public function Test() { ... or a class attribute new ClassAttr("Test") public function Test() { ... Does that lower the syntax bar enough? -Alec On 11/17/2010 4:12 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I’m not the only one in this thread repeating himself to make a point :) > > What I opposed is the notion that ‘everyone wants some sort of meta attribute support’. Maybe I read too much into it but I read it as implying we need something substantial that’s new. > > Either way, I’m fine with going in this way as long as the high-level-direction of not adding a large amount of syntax is clear. > > Zeev > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg47732.html > you said that before. > and this is where the discussion started about the alternative syntax and implementation. > you said, that you see the usefulness, you just don't think that it worths the complexity and the new syntax. > if that so, then I can't see, why can't we move on from the why is this useful to the how and what should we implement. > in the end, it would only gets in to the trunk if the prominent coredevs(as you, Rasmus, etc.) accept it, so I don't know why are you afraid continuing the discussion about this feature.