Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92630
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 65.55.169.134 as permitted sender)
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
References: <BY2PR0201MB178479B3AF8BD49583233034BF6E0@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAESVnVrNqpqsTUCdHiQi8j3d4KVz8ZqRh6pEVJegR-EsmFN3_g@mail.gmail.com>
CC: internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5719D016.10401@zend.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:17:42 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVrNqpqsTUCdHiQi8j3d4KVz8ZqRh6pEVJegR-EsmFN3_g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:23
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2016 07:17:56.5000 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN1PR0201MB1791
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP Attributes
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)



On 04/22/2016 05:15 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
>> I would like to present an RFC proposing support for native annotation.
>>
> I'm trying to imagine where the benefit of non-constant expressions comes in.
>
> <<foo($a < 1)>>
>
> Assuming we roll in php-ast at the same time (which is a big addition,
> IMO, and deserves its own separate RFC), what are users meant to do
> with this?  Even if there's a use-case here, one could accomplish the
> same thing with:
>
> <<foo('$a < 1')>>
>
> And manually running that string into php-ast if that's what the caller wanted.

Good point. It's really not a big deal to run 
ast\parse_code($r->getAttributes()["foo"])
This would simplify the implementation a bit.
>
> Also, maybe I missed it, but I didn't see an answer to the question of
> ambiguity between parsing the above as a straight string, versus
> parsing it as a ZEND_AST_ZVAL.  I'm sure the answer is "If the AST
> tree is just a ZVAL, then it's provided as the compile-time
> expression, but what about something else like this:
>
> <<foo(1+1)>>
>
> Logically, this is reducible to a single compile-time value, but it's
> a complex expression, so would it be the value int(2)? Or
> ZEND_AST_BINARY_OP(int(1), int(1))?
Currently this going to be an AST - ZEND_AST_BINARY_OP(int(1), int(1))
>
> I just think that over-engineers what should be a simple annotation feature.

This makes sense. I think, I'll follow your suggestion.
The only missing ability is syntax check for <expression> attribute values.

>
> All that said, I love the proposal overall, and I can't wait to
> propose builtin annotations like <<__Memoize>>, <<__Mock>>, and
> similar.
I'm looking forward as well. :)

Thanks. Dmitry.

>
> -Sara