Hi! > That one actually looks better to me, but: I'm not sure how annotation > syntax is supposed to support expressions or closures, > > > keep AST.
So we'd have a zval type that is the raw AST? Would it also be available to user functions or internal functions/classes? It's an intriguing concept but I'm not sure we appreciate all the consequences of it - adding new type is a rather big change as everything should support it. Or did you mean something else? > Is it some special form of annotation for this > purpose only (meh)? > > > yes. some special attributes. requires/ensures/invariant Ah, so <<require()>> annotation would work different than any other type of annotation? Then I don't see any use for it to use annotation syntax (whatever it would be) - same syntax should mean same or at least similar function. Maybe I am still missing what you meant. > Oh, and <<>> syntax is *ugly* ;) > > > It's from HHVM. I don't like it as well, please, propose the better one. Pretty much every other one is better: Java and the followers, Python: @foo C#: [foo] -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
