Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93311
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain daveyshafik.com from 209.85.215.44 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: me@daveyshafik.com
In-Reply-To: <CADqTB_i5WL+rzCuFHkRmXsPj16WDc4eWmpAoFmyeuYXvuOP_NQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADqTB_i5WL+rzCuFHkRmXsPj16WDc4eWmpAoFmyeuYXvuOP_NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:57:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CANaX5ncP8wHE5GR--BMkg98Rg=saornk+w0NR=NDt_bjR7MKig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Schultz <rasmus@mindplay.dk>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114106d8b09dc10532b8d075
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Simple Annotations
From: davey@php.net (Davey Shafik)

--001a114106d8b09dc10532b8d075
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Rasmus Schultz <rasmus@mindplay.dk> wrote:

> Dear Internals,
>
> I'm announcing a simplified RFC for annotations:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/simple-annotations
>
> It's an alternative to the proposed Attributes RFC and the (2010)
> Annotations RFC.
>
> I'm attempting with this to describe a feature that is closer to the
> language than what is proposed by the Attributes RFC, by permitting
> the use of any valid PHP expression as an annotation value.
>
> Where the Attributes RFC proposes new syntax for what is essentially
> arrays, this proposal instead permits you to use actual arrays, e.g.
> without inventing any new syntax. It also allows you to use values of
> any other type, including objects. This makes the proposed feature
> more immediately useful, with a minimal learning curve.
>
> Compared with the old Annotations RFC (and Doctrine Annotations, etc.)
> this proposal does not attempt to define or enforce any rules about
> what annotations are, permitted usage, inheritance rules, etc. -
> instead it adds a very simple language feature upon which the
> community may choose to build (and evolve) facilities that implement
> additional rules and logic.
>
> My hope is that, if we can agree on something very small and simple,
> we can defer the more opinionated discussions about rules and logic to
> the community.
>
> In my opinion, language features should be simple, and consistent with
> the language - I believe the way to do that, is to avoid discussions
> about how such as facility should be used, and instead focus on how it
> should work. There is a lot of opinion built into the old Annotations
> RFC, and into Doctrine - features that attempt to dictate how the
> feature should be used. I don't believe the language should dictate
> what is or isn't correct or appropriate use.


I think I like this, however a couple of simple questions:

1) Any chance for (optionally) _naming_ annotations? It would be nice to be
able to do: ->getAnnotation('table') and not have to handle unnecessary
annotations

2) I like the idea of Hacks memoize for example, how do you see those being
implemented? Or don't you?

3) When are annotations executed? On ->getAnnotations()? Every time?

Thanks,

--001a114106d8b09dc10532b8d075--