Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64744
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain beberlei.de from 209.85.212.170 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50ED4C18.3090806@zerocue.com>
References: <50ED4C18.3090806@zerocue.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:58:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEPJdumNPXbsj1Jostg2hQ52VM9Oog3+7zcJWuP7UOK5EpUZ2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>
Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4512081b0cb704d2dc4b77
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] - True Annotations
From: kontakt@beberlei.de (Benjamin Eberlei)

--047d7b4512081b0cb704d2dc4b77
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I think this RFC syntax is outdated. We can remove the whole new syntax and
just make everything between <> php code that returns the last statement
because of the array short syntax this ends up to be stuff like:

<['foo' => bar']>
<['foo' => foo()]>
<['foo' => new Foo('bar')]>

This would greatly simplify the feature, because then its just PHP code and
everybody allready knows that.


On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote:

> Just starting a new thread here to discuss true annotations vs a DocBlock
> Parser:
>
> RFC Referenced:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/**annotations<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
>

--047d7b4512081b0cb704d2dc4b77--