Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64714
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADqTB_gH=14J4Md=H=1ZYD9vjtRiGd+tSb9VTioQy-vzqHq01A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADqTB_h4eh4mPi89uRps6vZWXjDEhUtcBopL7jmO-UgRuyf19w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKtZbJ526-QRPmLT34fCeCZBLteeHLrHVrnKeLMCsUkuxoUyfA@mail.gmail.com> <CADqTB_gH=14J4Md=H=1ZYD9vjtRiGd+tSb9VTioQy-vzqHq01A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:10:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFp73Xuv_FMThqF34FOvvFHFo93iA+4UjNicrbfFbGP4dObEvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Schultz <rasmus@mindplay.dk>
Cc: Vladislav Veselinov <v.veselinov@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54fae3a7d3ded04d2d191d0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reflection annotations reader
From: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com ("guilhermeblanco@gmail.com")

--bcaec54fae3a7d3ded04d2d191d0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi,

At the time Pierrick and I worked on annotations patch, we couldn't use
some of the operators due to many different reasons:
@ = error supressing
[] = short array syntax
{} = scopr creation
: = all sorts of problems you can imagine
& = array referencing

We actually found that <> was allowed, so we used this one.
Now that short array syntax has evolved a lot from original patch, maybe []
is supported again.


On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Rasmus Schultz <rasmus@mindplay.dk> wrote:

> I've started working on a new proposal, but I'm getting hung up on the
> syntax - if we can't use angle brackets anymore, what can we use? Virtually
> every symbol on a standard US keyword is an operator of some sort, does
> that mean those are all out of the question?
>
> e.g. thinking of concrete possible basic syntax, neither of the following
> delimiters would work:
>
> [Foo('bar')]
>
> <Foo('bar')>
>
> {Foo('bar')}
>
> And presumably none of the following would work either:
>
> ~Foo('bar')
> @Foo('bar')
> ^Foo('bar')
> *Foo('bar')
> &Foo('bar')
> :Foo('bar')
>
> Can you think of anything that would work?
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Vladislav Veselinov
> <v.veselinov@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Assume that you have this class with your proposed syntax:
> >
> > [SomeAnnotation('somevalue')]
> > class Test {
> >
> > }
> >
> > This conflicts with the short array syntax. It looks like an array
> > containing the result of the function 'SomeAnnotation' invoked with
> > the parameter 'somevalue'.
> > The only difference is the missing ";" but relying on this to
> > determine whether this is an annotation or not would be insane.
> > I'd support such a decision but with other syntax.
> >
> > I like Guilherme's RFC. I just don't think that the syntax is very
> PHPish.
> >
> >
>



-- 
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada

--bcaec54fae3a7d3ded04d2d191d0--