Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52179
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=ITMYdLS2FDb9j8B9YlwD3OneuU0wtDBheFRe5Vq7aLmwPAL0awO1UEhf+6xt09JI+F
         09ZxDqL1XLWtzExKrEYV0SarHMXkUGcEYdnACUBYfnA0vzP248mFQflzB4Pe38HjLrg7
         DwwjlKekcBdJfi6FXm7PY+UVtSMFto/gJC8VQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4DC83401.2090202@sugarcrm.com>
References: <BANLkTinO0h7020fs+PLjM0fUmMjQXoTsyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTim8p7A5+svvjZw6rc_KE+tBMnOsjw@mail.gmail.com> <4DC826B1.4090806@lerdorf.com>
 <BANLkTikpLY+AntSrNi91rzGNZi4FkPrSwA@mail.gmail.com> <4DC82A36.8090604@lerdorf.com>
 <BANLkTi=aLVw8KqOV_jb9dBm=XqX6TqTVwA@mail.gmail.com> <4DC83401.2090202@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 15:53:12 -0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTiniayhZ+8CRQjPFBDLOBu=E7UUv=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again
From: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com ("guilhermeblanco@gmail.com")

Hi Stas,

Comments inline.

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrot=
e:
> Hi!
>
>> If possible, could you look at the patch and give me high level ideas
>> of what could be changed?
>
> If the patch is the same RFC that is at
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations, the same problems that were voiced =
a
> number of times on the list stay:
>

Currently it's not.
When I was going to update it, wiki went offline.

> - it is overly complex (see class User example - it's really a piece of
> code, I think it should be in the code)

That's just an example. I'll simplify it.
The main point there was to illustrate the ability to support nested
annotations. Exmaple using @:

@A(@B)

> - it introduces method call syntax not compatible with the rest of PHP
> - it introduces object instantiation syntax not compatible with the rest =
of
> PHP

This is already fixed.
@A(@B) would require class A like this:

class A {
    public function __construct(B $b) { ... }
}

class B {}

>
> These issues were mentioned before - were they fixed?

So your short answer is yes. =3D)

> The RFC also does not clarify where the code contained in annotations is =
run
> and how it would play with bytecode caches.

Sorry, this was one of the things that I was going to update. I'll
include it too.

> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> (408)454-6900 ext. 227
>



--=20
Guilherme Blanco
Mobile: +55 (16) 9215-8480
MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com
S=C3=A3o Paulo - SP/Brazil