Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81943
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <023201d0415e$5731d800$05958800$@tekwire.net>
References: <CA+9eiLuNjTa8JzBgnZE5iuv5BZ4Kw4Ehk1ivxPUetNSmZ43JMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d601d04146$6fbda4c0$4f38ee40$@tekwire.net> <CA+9eiLvQroYuUW_dVr+r5c=O=1aQ3upfahVUd1e-9qpLQRrxUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <020c01d0414b$2c3a1120$84ae3360$@tekwire.net> <CAEZPtU41ud0JSzfc6axnzdKCNJ48-LBCx=zuiFVpQ1mNdTK-kA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXZcTGdB6=iTJxnfkCm6dkUa=dHrsGKcofG3pSTftafRzg@mail.gmail.com> <023201d0415e$5731d800$05958800$@tekwire.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 01:18:16 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXZYvt5U644Q7+_Tr9o7=1X9svWK8OQEK4s06js9GGngyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?= <francois@tekwire.net>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc19ac28f58f050e59a99c
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Design by Contract
From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)

--047d7bdc19ac28f58f050e59a99c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Francois,

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre <francois@tekwire.n=
et>
wrote:

> > De : yohgaki@gmail.com [mailto:yohgaki@gmail.com] De la part de Yasuo
> Ohgaki
>
> > We don't have to integrate DbC into phpdoc. phpdoc may have integration
> of new DbC syntax.
> > I think it's helpful even if phpdoc copies post/pre condition as
> document.
> >
> > There are too many possibility for DbC syntax.
> > We are better to choose something in common among languages.
>
> No. The more I detail the concept, the more I read alternative proposals,
> the more I consider extending phpdoc is the best solution. As I explain i=
n
> the RFC, both concepts are closely related, and that's the only solution
> I've seen so far that preserves BC. I could add that it proposes a soluti=
on
> to issues not even detected nor discussed in alternative proposals, like
> the syntax for return value, separate check for arguments returned by ref=
,
> built-in type checks, etc. Before we choose an alternative syntax, I thin=
k
> we should have good reasons, not 'Hey, that's how it's done in D !'. If
> there's a good reason to copy D or Eiffel syntax, let's adopt it, but I
> haven't read any good reason so far. And D is not so widely used so there=
's
> no user habit. We can copy the concept without copying the syntax.
>
> I think we're going too fast here. Before giving up and switching to
> another syntax, can you give me a little time to present what I have in
> mind. I started writing it yesterday evening and it will be ready tomorro=
w
> morning (UTC). Then, we can make a decision.
>

I didn't notice you have updated the RFC sorry. Sure, I'll read it and
respond.

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net

--047d7bdc19ac28f58f050e59a99c--