Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64748
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4NpvrCH1qhxcRXQpmgbTe7Tk7nBgj1ACeTjGfO6azD98gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50ED4C18.3090806@zerocue.com>
	<CAFMT4NpvrCH1qhxcRXQpmgbTe7Tk7nBgj1ACeTjGfO6azD98gw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:20:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nEaOB0KZNPte3WttJV96Pp36wnGATW7ow+120PcFsd1Wg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>
Cc: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53aece2185c6e04d2dc9b0a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] - True Annotations
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

--bcaec53aece2185c6e04d2dc9b0a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Levi,

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>wrote:

> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations
>
> Perhaps I am blind, but I do not see where in the RFC is defends its
> choice to use `<>`. Every other language I know of uses `@`, and I do
> not know of technical reasons why we couldn't use the same symbol.
> Annotations wouldn't be able to contain expressions so there wouldn't
> be anything that could generate a suppressible error.


Think about a function declaration:

@param("bar")
 function foo($bar) {}

What's the parser supposed to do there? Is it an annotation? Or an
error-silenced function call?

Granted, leaving off the `;` may make it possible to parse without
ambiguity (since the @ - Const String - ( - ... - ) sequence, followed by a
function declaration direclty may be possible)...

But it's ambiguous at best (especially to read)...

Anthony

--bcaec53aece2185c6e04d2dc9b0a--