Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64724
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender)
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 11:54:39 +0000 (GMT)
To: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>
cc: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <50ED4C18.3090806@zerocue.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1301091153350.28951@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
References: <50ED4C18.3090806@zerocue.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323329-1201280820-1357732479=:28951"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] - True Annotations
From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)

--8323329-1201280820-1357732479=:28951
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Clint Priest wrote:

> Just starting a new thread here to discuss true annotations vs a DocBlock
> Parser:
>=20
> RFC Referenced:
>=20
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations
>=20
>=20
> 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 th=
e
> > > 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, do=
es
> > > that mean those are all out of the question?
> > >=20
> > > e.g. thinking of concrete possible basic syntax, neither of the follo=
wing
> > > delimiters would work:
> > >=20
> > > [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 an=
d
> thus only before a class keyword, before a property or method declaration=
=2E
>=20
> In none of those scopes would [ ] be a parsing issue I believe...
>=20
> The one case would be at the beginning of a class, but if simply added
> something such as:
> [:SomeAttribute(xyz,abc),SomeAttribute2]

I've never ever seen an annotation like this in a docblock. What kind of=20
wacky syntax is this?! And will we now need a parser for docblocks in=20
style "phpdocumenter" and those annotations above=E2=80=BD

cheers,
Derick

--=20
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine
--8323329-1201280820-1357732479=:28951--