On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Alexander Lisachenko <lisachenko...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Hello, maybe you could try to consult your ideas with Ivan Enderlin. He mentioned in previous emails (for instance http://news.php.net/php.internals/82245) that he would prefer some AOP/hook-based approach to DbC as well, so it may be compatible with your mindset. Regards Pavel Kouril -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
