Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74504
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BLU436-SMTP788AB6C165873CFABE38EBE23B0@phx.gbl>
References: <CA+9eiLuknJ7am5jU4WBN7fGXUcZtbb6axsji8ZnydCJ4P-O9hw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpcNL67-cXyBd=yuWdhZPmHM592Q4-g2PGcyOTS_KsBaqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLvj5GVNQ=1D2=RbenfUCUAPaG3uP5H+yAW=TKd-jEVyjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<-6285448086228171932@unknownmsgid>
	<CA+9eiLvUeu0j+sPz-EWeq4VC=Spzc7tseAp4VHqpiFEaxHdLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<67d97efff27b61e45ef74d4f4339b4b3@mail.gmail.com>
	<962B3020-200F-45D2-8FEC-AD7A0BFDA50E@ajf.me>
	<CA+9eiLu7CZwEFS0bRHCdW2+ScnfuCbo+FCT-8HymLm=WZBhfhA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D1C446F2-C46C-49C1-B66E-702CA4901F1D@ajf.me>
	<DUB406-EAS3560576E7F9AB9B54837717E23B0@phx.gbl>
	<CAEZPtU4K-y8raOxzL_nkA0p-_3AXZERmcWRBDqnDM6ikNE8c+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU436-SMTP788AB6C165873CFABE38EBE23B0@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 15:36:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6D7zimQdYRHthTeP187qksMfYOUOPPE=PX8eWJQ2NXnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 
	Xinchen Hui <xinchen.h@zend.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com>, 
	Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [RFC] Fast Parameter Parsing API
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Am 26.5.2014 um 12:11 schrieb Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>:
>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Actually, that's exactly my the original API, just with ZP_OPTIONAL instead of numbers for counts:
>>
>> Where was it proposed? I missed it.
>
> It wasn't proposed, it just was the initial patch I showed Dmitry when I made a small PoC.
>
>>> ZEND_PARSE_PARAMETERS(ZP_ARRAY(input) ZP_LONG(offset) ZP_OPTIONAL ZP_ZVAL(z_length) ZP_BOOL(preserve_keys), { return; })
>>> (The return at the end is the error branch)
>>>
>>> I still prefer it that way, but Dmitry doesn't...
>>
>> Pretty much the same to me, with the same conclusion as well, sadly.
>>
>> I do not find it more readable than the one in the RFC and it does not
>> solve the double or sometimes triple declarations of the arguments.
>> And I do not even want to think about how it will look if we implement
>> named arguments (let face it, we will have them).
>
> I highly doubt we can solve that problem. I think of it being impossible.
> (When not trying abysmal things like parsing code upon compiling)
>
>>> It's the most readable I still think.
>>
>> zpp current usage is much more readable to me and less error prone
>> while writing (clang plugin helping to check the syntax, see Johannes
>> tools).
>
> Actually, with the new implementation, you don't even need a plugin for
> checking types etc.. Even gcc does that for you with a nice warning.
>
>> May I point you to my questions in this thread about extending the
>> reflection struct, add the necessary info (types) and maybe do the
>> naming args while being at it?
>
> See above, I think of it as impossible.

Ok, that's impossible. Now let us spend some time on that to figure out why :)


-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org