On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com
<mailto:rowan.coll...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Is there any value in deciding the initial syntax for 7.0, and
implementing only non-parameterised annotations, i.e. you can call
hasAnnotation(string): bool but nothing else?
Dmitry Stogov wrote on 16/02/2015 16:02:
this will work, of course, and robust implementation wouldn't take
more than a day :)
but it'll require user-level parser again. no big advantage in
comparison to doc-block.
No user-level parser would be required (or even possible), because
parameters would be illegal, not just unparsed.
So, for example, the following would be legal in 7.0:
<<IsMagic>>
function foo() { }
if ( (new ReflectionFunction('foo'))->hasAnnotation('IsMagic') ) ...
But the following would be illegal, even though a similar syntax would
be being prototyped for use in 7.1:
<<HasMagic('Expelliamus!')>>
function foo() { }
$magic = (new ReflectionFunction('foo'))->getAnnotation('HasMagic');
A few use cases would be possible just with boolean flags, and it would
give us a base to work with going forward.
It also avoids the situation (as discussed in another thread) of trying
to implement every detail of the implementation of the feature before
checking for consensus. In this case we can check that people are in
favour of:
1) adding annotations as a core feature
2) the basic syntax (<Foo>, <<Foo>>, [Foo], @Foo, etc)
If there's an overwhelming Yes, that's a confidence boost for whoever
works on the harder parts over the following months.
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
