Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82871
Return-Path: <dmitry@zend.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 727 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2015 18:41:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 16 Feb 2015 18:41:24 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=dmitry@zend.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=dmitry@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.220.176 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: dmitry@zend.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.176 mail-vc0-f176.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.220.176] ([209.85.220.176:34497] helo=mail-vc0-f176.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 7C/99-36518-3D932E45 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 13:41:23 -0500
Received: by mail-vc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id la4so11037967vcb.7
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:41:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=YR72n36B0aqzFRuPbaPF03gj9MUCLMBUNhFqDz+hdiI=;
        b=ZcTGdBIaviV/F84c38mTM3Qknm89Qx1uAcXBAgF/mytBAoMYG15PvPFPf703EXWdid
         6CzUbjGNB0Ko12at3Ma7F0qu5EnNK6TBxgo0KSgQ5QzCe+NNHth7iaazK9AC1piapdO2
         5/B5zKIH7A5e/qFVD8vdlo5luvbdxyYXc8BKmr1fpzKG2YjZ9d+85b1sv34Zt87wtB4F
         IgDAdCt+K1iJza7awYclR96cZpx11e5Z8jBW1QTj+VQAGJWDk8efFbWqFtB7XaAs032f
         JXaAtbdY7/Xr0bVv+1g8ngjDvBAji5tddyS5A004LBei57pGmI+cZjt8UcpEkNNjAtYY
         i0ow==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlb06Es+aM23+DQmDSkSw+96XHQpHkx1UnD5QUqCqC6u4tx70iUzZnQbEeUojnhue3i2hRBX5w3LAfcg1f3A6UZcFAZPdu0KmSllOZVyyXmEU/CJZ2l4X8GuEsKDiepv1o18NtRedZ7MU9V02Oievh45HABRQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.139.7 with SMTP id qu7mr14022992vdb.68.1424112080347;
 Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.74.73 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:41:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54E228F1.7060307@gmail.com>
References: <CA+9eiLsxSpbdaa7Bpci2PRXQMRkTUiwZphjQYv2iDyXLUhrMow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c95=uEdXgmdfTyCvkVk1TU2hpb40Nk9P0zw9FwFV_Nhrw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E20FC0.3060104@gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLu9+nbDPC02Q2+1gpu4f3yLqv4OoMKTQKqDRJdN_anL4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E228F1.7060307@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:41:20 +0400
Message-ID: <CA+9eiLtWL3yOyncZF6BgiYFW-BFpqwFuGtoDZfvMpssbeh6=mQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52d53abab8319050f38eeb0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Annotations in PHP7
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)

--bcaec52d53abab8319050f38eeb0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

this won't implement features necessary for phpDocumentor, Doctrine, etc.


On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com
> <mailto:rowan.collins@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>    Is there any value in deciding the initial syntax for 7.0, and
>    implementing only non-parameterised annotations, i.e. you can call
>    hasAnnotation(string): bool but nothing else?
>
>
> Dmitry Stogov wrote on 16/02/2015 16:02:
>
>> this will work, of course, and robust implementation wouldn't take more
>> than a day :)
>> but it'll require user-level parser again. no big advantage in comparison
>> to doc-block.
>>
>
> No user-level parser would be required (or even possible), because
> parameters would be illegal, not just unparsed.
>
> So, for example, the following would be legal in 7.0:
>
> <<IsMagic>>
> function foo() { }
>
> if ( (new ReflectionFunction('foo'))->hasAnnotation('IsMagic') ) ...
>
>
> But the following would be illegal, even though a similar syntax would be
> being prototyped for use in 7.1:
>
> <<HasMagic('Expelliamus!')>>
> function foo() { }
>
> $magic = (new ReflectionFunction('foo'))->getAnnotation('HasMagic');
>
>
> A few use cases would be possible just with boolean flags, and it would
> give us a base to work with going forward.
>
> It also avoids the situation (as discussed in another thread) of trying to
> implement every detail of the implementation of the feature before checking
> for consensus. In this case we can check that people are in favour of:
> 1) adding annotations as a core feature
> 2) the basic syntax (<Foo>, <<Foo>>, [Foo], @Foo, etc)
>
> If there's an overwhelming Yes, that's a confidence boost for whoever
> works on the harder parts over the following months.
>
>
> Regards,
> --
> Rowan Collins
> [IMSoP]
>
>
>

--bcaec52d53abab8319050f38eeb0--