Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83569
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <francois@php.net>
To: "'Lester Caine'" <lester@lsces.co.uk>,
	"'PHP internals'" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <54EA7BDC.7000002@lsces.co.uk> <06d601d04f13$4b0f2100$e12d6300$@php.net> <54EB0B7E.3070500@lsces.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <54EB0B7E.3070500@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:49:22 +0100
Message-ID: <073b01d04f6f$87ab9ec0$9702dc40$@php.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQLAq8ojwQY12Chy7AsQOev7yTKvFwGSJnNfAgIbcRqbANy6EA==
Content-Language: fr
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Type hints ...
From: francois@php.net (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=)

Hi Lester,

> De : Lester Caine [mailto:lester@lsces.co.uk]
>=20
> Reworking 15+ years of code to create 'dbc' versions of the existing
> annotations is another drain on available time. I can see someone
> writing a 'converter' program to populate some parts of this, but I'm
> not sure just how helpful that would be.

*Please* read the document I reference before giving opinion.

The mechanism described here is based on code block information. It uses =
existing information and extends the syntax to check for more complex =
types. That's why I said it should fit your needs.

Not reading the document and replying negatively just you because I =
talked about DbC is poor, imo. DbC is just a concept, not an =
implementation. While alternate proposals may religiously copy syntax =
from D or Eiffel, I chose to adapt it the PHP way. For different =
reasons, including the ones you give (compatibility with pre-existing =
info), I chose to implement that by an extension of doc block syntax.

So, if you want to give an opinion, please read =
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/dbc first.

> Just as going through libraries
> to see where someone has stripped the docblock

This can be checked too, on a limited extent, as well as compatibility =
with possible PHP type hints. Ideally, it shouldn't be in comments, but =
is was done this way. And I am not convinced by the ' automatic =
conversion' way.

The only issue is that several list members are absolutely opposed to =
base anything on doc comments, despite the fact it has proved useful for =
years. Although I asked several times, none took the time to explain me =
why. It must be ovious, but not to me. So, an RFC proposing to extend =
doc block syntax has no chance to pass. It was already beginning in =
pre-discussions about DbC with constructive posts like : "No doc block. =
Period.".

However, I think this can be fully implemented in an extension, with no =
change to the core. So, no need to approve an RFC !

Hope to get your thoughts soon.

Regards

Fran=C3=A7ois