2015-02-10 15:20 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com>: > I thought about this way, and you are welcome to start composing another > RFC. it makes sense and has its advantages. > Unfortunately, it relays on many unavailable features that has to be > designed as well (annotations, AST manipulation, opcode manipulation), but > may be this is a right road. >
Thanks, Dmitry! Your position is clearly highlight my vision, it's not so easy, but maybe it will bring us much more profit at the end. 2015-02-10 15:20 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com>: > D and Effiel approach may work as well, but if you like another > (annotation based) approach - be involved into development. > At first we'll need 3-rd RFC that defines all the things that must be > implemented. > I may help, with RFC, design and implementation. > Thanks, your help is really appreciated ) I'l try to start another one RFC about this API, let's have a look what can be done.
