Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92689
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain fleshgrinder.com from 212.232.25.164 cause and error)
Reply-To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <BY2PR0201MB178479B3AF8BD49583233034BF6E0@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAESVnVrNqpqsTUCdHiQi8j3d4KVz8ZqRh6pEVJegR-EsmFN3_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <571BA0F0.2030400@fleshgrinder.com> <571C82A7.2060706@fleshgrinder.com>
 <CAEPJdum9BdM2B04d6Jp0_YtD=YZa1pPjUD3H5ZC4RRYkw_t1jA@mail.gmail.com>
 <571CB44C.1000704@fleshgrinder.com>
 <CAEPJdunm-YukXgSV5OWigiWX02Sw9Nz=GvLgJJN4Fq-j-hjZcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Cc: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>,
 "dmitry@zend.com >> Dmitry Stogov" <dmitry@zend.com>
Message-ID: <571CBD1E.7020103@fleshgrinder.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 14:33:34 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJdunm-YukXgSV5OWigiWX02Sw9Nz=GvLgJJN4Fq-j-hjZcA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="KGlrDNsdABOMQcDptfP7d4OSEfI8cvf7U"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP Attributes
From: php@fleshgrinder.com (Fleshgrinder)

--KGlrDNsdABOMQcDptfP7d4OSEfI8cvf7U
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="NVAdUOMh9DaksAxtbR1TB27xkHODou8gD"
From: Fleshgrinder <php@fleshgrinder.com>
Reply-To: internals@lists.php.net
To: Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Cc: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>,
 "dmitry@zend.com >> Dmitry Stogov" <dmitry@zend.com>
Message-ID: <571CBD1E.7020103@fleshgrinder.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP Attributes
References: <BY2PR0201MB178479B3AF8BD49583233034BF6E0@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAESVnVrNqpqsTUCdHiQi8j3d4KVz8ZqRh6pEVJegR-EsmFN3_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <571BA0F0.2030400@fleshgrinder.com> <571C82A7.2060706@fleshgrinder.com>
 <CAEPJdum9BdM2B04d6Jp0_YtD=YZa1pPjUD3H5ZC4RRYkw_t1jA@mail.gmail.com>
 <571CB44C.1000704@fleshgrinder.com>
 <CAEPJdunm-YukXgSV5OWigiWX02Sw9Nz=GvLgJJN4Fq-j-hjZcA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJdunm-YukXgSV5OWigiWX02Sw9Nz=GvLgJJN4Fq-j-hjZcA@mail.gmail.com>

--NVAdUOMh9DaksAxtbR1TB27xkHODou8gD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am not arguing against the RFC nor the feature itself, on the
contrary, I like it. I just do not like certain aspects and design
decisions of it; that is all.

Configuration and AOP are the best usecases for annotations and those
should be stressed in the RFC. They are not mentioned at all!

Another usecase that I am missing completely is the usage of it for
documentation and static code analysis. I already mentioned the /throws/
annotation, this could help e.g. IDEs to warn you better about uncatched
exceptions form methods you call.

DbC is a possible usecase but better implemented at language level. The
RFC could mention the possibility of it. However, right now it is the
sole usecase beside the not very PHP applicable `<<inline>>` and
`<<jit>>` examples.

You see, this is more a problem of the RFC text and not of the feature. ;=
)

Another think I complained about is the proposed syntax because it makes
annotations look like function calls, which they simply are not and will
not be. The syntax is misleading and a possible built-in functionality
of reactive annotations (not saying we need them) at the language level
for userland is blocked. I know I just repeated myself.

The extension you mentioned works just fine without the brackets.

  @invariant CONDITION;
  class A {

    @ensure CONDITION;
    @require CONDITION;
    function f(){}

  }

--=20
Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger


--NVAdUOMh9DaksAxtbR1TB27xkHODou8gD--

--KGlrDNsdABOMQcDptfP7d4OSEfI8cvf7U
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=O2zQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--KGlrDNsdABOMQcDptfP7d4OSEfI8cvf7U--