Hi!
- LSB. Can you explain from the top of your head when when the called scope is reset or not (e.g. with parent::, self::, className::, possibly in non-static contexts) in a function call? I can't.
It's not that hard. Keywords forward, classnames don't.
- Namespaces. It takes a while to memorize the resolution rules.
For classes, there's essentially one rule - not fully qualified names use import or current NS. For functions there's a fallback to global scope above resolution brings nothing. That's it - how hard is that?
- References. Need I say more? You almost need to know the implementation to understand them. Being called "references" doesn't help either.
You very rarely need to use references, and actually most of its use follow from the mistake (as we see now) of making array a primitive type like the others. It should have worked like objects work. However it is true that references are an ugly part of PHP. How it's the reason to add more ugliness?
The proposed annotations are basically object instances that are returned when you call getAnnotations. There are no itemized lists of rules. I don't see how this is complex.
They aren't just object instances, since they also have separate syntax to create them - unlike the syntax to create all other objects. And it wouldn't be a problem if it would be something trivial - like just class name - but we have here whole new syntax complete with nesting, named parameters, validation logic and what not.
-- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
