Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82516
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.220.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54DBA801.8060403@gmail.com>
References: <CA+9eiLuNjTa8JzBgnZE5iuv5BZ4Kw4Ehk1ivxPUetNSmZ43JMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLuUFiKwOR-BqQEmkQirpAMxgb0GE70Zz7h4WDsd1Me8FQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXYDvdvRLiOpDk8EnvE00JE4x47SXB9fET4uO2Er_F6s_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL=_i_=mGc_0u0YDCQ7Jiqn_ggyJmQSd_mk_snf7ArDpDXO53A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLur0DVGBNkzFkiTj3POL5B9H0D8=5wE-wuwN2O-FQZNyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL=_i_m=XDKtc2iCSjoquaHkmX862gyMweKS5Xw4AS--oLj19w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLsX=mOOgXmNBKD1L6WKx2=Vy81mThaKa1XCjjAw6R=2vA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXYYp0WQmnTnbsHXzc8XGG0PxOVHu7XvwiMCSJiUWoKeCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXbKs8cGRTQ1sfeRonnmVXtp7ftVDkz_ALmqr8OnczQxCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXZ8Wy7bUYgtbajr+GkpQtQEjQLMbFT2mSB5OEnLO2mgfg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL=_i_kypYpa3t06peRKwtww=cbh+KhM+iAOtotDGNaFfJBuVA@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DAFD32.3000005@gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLtswwOqku57nHLu8fmHOwzvVcqkHTehBQOPUqQb5P2BUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DB0BC0.20304@gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLsK1JJbyGu5Fxf+MNz63wb8K0661rkMm-h+vTVUZo+0SQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DBA801.8060403@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:38:29 +0400
Message-ID: <CA+9eiLvwRZZDcNoskzvu3svM3SCyjDv+Et3MpujV8GY2EdqnRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, 
	=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?= <francois@tekwire.net>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307d0076c98692050edf349b
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Design by Contract
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)

--20cf307d0076c98692050edf349b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> >     That one actually looks better to me, but: I'm not sure how
> annotation
> >     syntax is supposed to support expressions or closures,
> >
> >
> > keep AST.
>
> So we'd have a zval type that is the raw AST? Would it also be available
> to user functions or internal functions/classes? It's an intriguing
> concept but I'm not sure we appreciate all the consequences of it -
> adding new type is a rather big change as everything should support it.
> Or did you mean something else?
>

This is just an initial idea, and some research is required.
I don't propose to add new ZVAL type. AST may be just stored internally and
accesses through extended Reflection API.
This API may provide some classes to represent AST nodes.


> >     Is it some special form of annotation for this
> >     purpose only (meh)?
> >
> >
> > yes. some special attributes. requires/ensures/invariant
>
> Ah, so <<require()>> annotation would work different than any other type
> of annotation? Then I don't see any use for it to use annotation syntax
> (whatever it would be) - same syntax should mean same or at least
> similar function. Maybe I am still missing what you meant.
>

I don't understand you as well. It should be clear, that annotation should
allow declaration of any attributes, and some of them may be used for
different purposes. some for DbC.


>
> >     Oh, and <<>> syntax is *ugly* ;)
> >
> >
> > It's from HHVM. I don't like it as well, please, propose the better one.
>
> Pretty much every other one is better:
> Java and the followers, Python: @foo
> C#: [foo]
>

[foo] is already a legal syntax in PHP - array with constant foo.

Thanks. Dmitry.


>
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalyshev@gmail.com
>

--20cf307d0076c98692050edf349b--