On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > On 31 Jul 2014, at 19:11, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I've created a draft RFC and implementation for the introduction of an > > Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) as an intermediate structure in our > compilation > > process: > > Oh man, you got the implementation done? That makes me so happy. ^^ > > Like Sara, I am very, very much for this. There are so many potential > benefits, and the only real downside IMO (memory use and performance at > parsing-time) is largely negated by using opcache, a built-in feature of > PHP. An AST is really the most obvious and best way to do compilation, IMO, > and as it so happens, I’ve used them in the past when implementing a > programming language I designed. > > A benefit I particularly like is we could perhaps add nicer generator > expression and list() syntaxes, as you have described. I can’t remember if > you implemented the former. If you did, I’d love it if you’d also propose > it should ASTs get in, they’re an awesome feature and it is a shame we > didn’t get them when we got generators. > > On another note, while we *could* allow extensions to hook into the AST, > I’d stray away from letting them modify it and implement new features. That > really doesn’t sound like a good idea at all (I could elaborate on why, but > I won’t bother unless someone asks me). Letting them read it would clearly > be a good thing though. Side note: Would that obsolete your PHP-Parser > userland library once an extension allows reading the AST? If an extension > is written, perhaps it should have the same API as your library had. I > believe many projects already use it. > > On an *implementation* note, I assume this is based on the existing > constant ASTs, unless you renamed it to something other then zend_ast. Does > this cause any problems for them? While I can see the benefits of course, > I’d just like to be sure that the validator doesn’t let anything slip > through. > > It’s also nice to see zend_emit_op and _jump, I suspect they’ll make code > easier to read (currently I have to scan for the other operands sometimes > as they’re not always set together). > > Again, I really like this. I look forward to its inclusion. Thank you so > much! > > -- > Andrea Faulds > http://ajf.me/ > > > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > That's nice Nik ;-)
As I told you on IRC, I'm all in for developping an extension that could play with the AST. I like Andrea's suggestion of publishing to userland an API that looks like PHPParser :-) Julien.P
