Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82126
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXZ9sS9iNQgYQ5JgbYZi+iTWmFyqPOnWTWhpJOYzsPpA7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9eiLuNjTa8JzBgnZE5iuv5BZ4Kw4Ehk1ivxPUetNSmZ43JMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXZ9sS9iNQgYQ5JgbYZi+iTWmFyqPOnWTWhpJOYzsPpA7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:24:13 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXagu-TghdqmDAMm0NhY3DFhYgEZ5kH6JOZpKaS9Ppyofg@mail.gmail.com>
To: guilhermeblanco <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?= <francois@tekwire.net>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a2aa2575538050e8f63c1
Subject: Re: Design by Contract
From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)

--001a113a2aa2575538050e8f63c1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Guilherme and Francois,

Could you give your ideas for these?
Thank you.

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:

> Hi Dimitry, Francois and Guilherme,
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yasuo,
>>
>> Following our conversation, I tried to imagine how DbC should look like
>> in PHP from user perspective. Finally, I was influenced by the semantic
>> proposed in D, and syntax proposed for Java. So, these are my initial
>> thoughts:
>>
>> For php it may look like the following:
>>
>> function foo()
>>     requre(<input-assert-expression>)
>>     ensure(<output-assert-expression>)
>> {
>>   ...
>> }
>>
>> It would require only one new reserved word "ensure".
>>
>
> Should I add D like version to the RFC? I don't care much about syntax as
> long as
> we have DbC.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/dbc
>
> Like Guilherme suggested, make some decisions first?
>
>
> 1- Doc comments vs. outside?
>
> 2- Keep object instance creation the same? IE: @Foo vs new Foo()
>
> 3- Is constructor the only way to inject parameters?
>
> 4- What if we have optional arguments, like: @Foo("bar", null, null,
> "woo")?
> Suppose that you wanna fix the optional arguments by declaring names (like
> this: @Foo("bar", test="woo")), doesn't it collide with PHP interests of
> not supporting parametrized arguments? How would parameter skipping
> proposal address this in a nicer way?
>
> 5- How would you deal with inheritance? Should a method inherit the same
> annotations from parent or not?
> Should we add ability to flag to inherit or not? What about overrides?
> Would they be allowed? Is there a vague idea on how this concept could be
> achieved?
>
> 6- Would you be possible to change annotations value at runtime?
>
> 7- Would we validate annotation arguments at all? Consider as array?
> Properties of objects?
>
> 8- In case we take the approach of properties of objects... how would we
> flag that a given class can/cannot be used as annotation: another
> annotation, interface, any other idea?
>
> 9- Would we and/or wow would we flag that a given class could be used only
> in a class and not in a method?
>
> 10- How would it be the syntax to declare a new annotation?
>
>
> Since people's preferences are diverse. It might be a good idea having
> pre-vote
> for designs, then we may have final vote with single design.
>
> We need some consensuses even for pre-vote.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> Guilherme, is this the RFC you've mentioned?
> >Whenever you feel ready to get true, complete Annotations into core
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations
>
> Just making sure.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Yasuo Ohgaki
> yohgaki@ohgaki.net
>

--001a113a2aa2575538050e8f63c1--