On 4/25/2016 10:31 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > completely disagree. > Each value in multi-value attribute may have its own meaning. e.g. > <<if(Condition,OnTrue,OnFalse)>> >
That is a different example but I think that I misinterpreted it anyways.
<<test(1,2)>>
function foo() {}
I thought that the above would result in the following:
reflect foo => [
test => 1
test => 2
]
But I think in reality it results int:
reflect foo => [
test => [ 1, 2 ]
]
In case the latter is true, than everything is fine. :)
On 4/25/2016 10:31 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> You should try to implement this syntax to understand the problem.
> It leads to parse conflicts.
>
The inclusion of the semicolon definitely does, yes. Usage of the @
should not but Stanislav already offered to jump in. I am not fit enough
yet with the php-src to take up such a big challenge.
On 4/25/2016 10:31 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> This RFC is not going to propose coding standards.
>
Only talking about a standard for internal attributes, userland can and
should do whatever they want. But we need to ensure consistency for
internal attributes and that userland is not going to collide with
internal ones.
Currently the RFC does not include any attributes but many examples that
others might use to deduce a coding standard and later we add internal
attributes and things go south.
--
Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
