Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64722
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zerocue.com designates 67.200.53.250 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <50ED4C18.3090806@zerocue.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 04:53:12 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------010209070901040805050200"
Subject: [PHP-DEV] - True Annotations
From: cpriest@zerocue.com (Clint Priest)

--------------010209070901040805050200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Just starting a new thread here to discuss true annotations vs a 
DocBlock Parser:

RFC Referenced:

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations


On 1/9/2013 2:09 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote:
> On 9 January 2013 01:08, 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')]
> Why would this not work? I'm struggling to think of a place where one
> would want to use an annotation where it could be misinterpreted as an
> array literal.  If anything, the visual "conflict" or association with
> the array syntax is a good thing in my book: my brain parses it as an
> array of one or more annotations.
I agree here, I think the above, if possible would be best.  In my mind 
annotations should proabably be limited in scope to class declarations 
and thus only before a class keyword, before a property or method 
declaration.

In none of those scopes would [ ] be a parsing issue I believe...

The one case would be at the beginning of a class, but if simply added 
something such as:
[:SomeAttribute(xyz,abc),SomeAttribute2]

It could never be confused with short array syntax and is still brief.

-- 
-Clint

--------------010209070901040805050200--