Hi,
At the time Pierrick and I worked on annotations patch, we couldn't use
some of the operators due to many different reasons:
@ = error supressing
[] = short array syntax
{} = scopr creation
: = all sorts of problems you can imagine
& = array referencing
We actually found that <> was allowed, so we used this one.
Now that short array syntax has evolved a lot from original patch, maybe []
is supported again.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Rasmus Schultz <ras...@mindplay.dk> wrote:
> I've started working on a new proposal, but I'm getting hung up on the
> syntax - if we can't use angle brackets anymore, what can we use? Virtually
> every symbol on a standard US keyword is an operator of some sort, does
> that mean those are all out of the question?
>
> e.g. thinking of concrete possible basic syntax, neither of the following
> delimiters would work:
>
> [Foo('bar')]
>
> <Foo('bar')>
>
> {Foo('bar')}
>
> And presumably none of the following would work either:
>
> ~Foo('bar')
> @Foo('bar')
> ^Foo('bar')
> *Foo('bar')
> &Foo('bar')
> :Foo('bar')
>
> Can you think of anything that would work?
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Vladislav Veselinov
> <v.veseli...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Assume that you have this class with your proposed syntax:
> >
> > [SomeAnnotation('somevalue')]
> > class Test {
> >
> > }
> >
> > This conflicts with the short array syntax. It looks like an array
> > containing the result of the function 'SomeAnnotation' invoked with
> > the parameter 'somevalue'.
> > The only difference is the missing ";" but relying on this to
> > determine whether this is an annotation or not would be insane.
> > I'd support such a decision but with other syntax.
> >
> > I like Guilherme's RFC. I just don't think that the syntax is very
> PHPish.
> >
> >
>
--
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: guilhermebla...@hotmail.com
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada
