Love the simplicity of the RFC, but I can already see people doing terrible
things with it:
<< new DateTimeImmutable() >>
<< log(get_instance('logger')) >>
And other global-state related stuff.
TBH, I'd rather just allow a constant array (with constant expressions
only), and that would be good enough :-)
Cheers,
Marco Pivetta
http://twitter.com/Ocramius
http://ocramius.github.com/
On 13 May 2016 at 15:15, Mathieu Rochette <math...@texthtml.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/13/2016 02:57 PM, Davey Shafik wrote:
> > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Rasmus Schultz <ras...@mindplay.dk>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Internals,
> >>
> >> I'm announcing a simplified RFC for annotations:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/simple-annotations
> >>
> >> It's an alternative to the proposed Attributes RFC and the (2010)
> >> Annotations RFC.
> >>
> >> I'm attempting with this to describe a feature that is closer to the
> >> language than what is proposed by the Attributes RFC, by permitting
> >> the use of any valid PHP expression as an annotation value.
> >>
> >> Where the Attributes RFC proposes new syntax for what is essentially
> >> arrays, this proposal instead permits you to use actual arrays, e.g.
> >> without inventing any new syntax. It also allows you to use values of
> >> any other type, including objects. This makes the proposed feature
> >> more immediately useful, with a minimal learning curve.
> >>
> >> Compared with the old Annotations RFC (and Doctrine Annotations, etc.)
> >> this proposal does not attempt to define or enforce any rules about
> >> what annotations are, permitted usage, inheritance rules, etc. -
> >> instead it adds a very simple language feature upon which the
> >> community may choose to build (and evolve) facilities that implement
> >> additional rules and logic.
> >>
> >> My hope is that, if we can agree on something very small and simple,
> >> we can defer the more opinionated discussions about rules and logic to
> >> the community.
> >>
> >> In my opinion, language features should be simple, and consistent with
> >> the language - I believe the way to do that, is to avoid discussions
> >> about how such as facility should be used, and instead focus on how it
> >> should work. There is a lot of opinion built into the old Annotations
> >> RFC, and into Doctrine - features that attempt to dictate how the
> >> feature should be used. I don't believe the language should dictate
> >> what is or isn't correct or appropriate use.
> >
> > I think I like this, however a couple of simple questions:
> >
> > 1) Any chance for (optionally) _naming_ annotations? It would be nice to
> be
> > able to do: ->getAnnotation('table') and not have to handle unnecessary
> > annotations
> not sure you need that, you can do this instead:
> ->getAnnotations(Table::class)
> however it won't throw an error if you have more than one "Table::class
> annotation" whereas I supposed you would expect so with a named annotation
> >
> > 2) I like the idea of Hacks memoize for example, how do you see those
> being
> > implemented? Or don't you?
> if Rasmus goal is to that "we can agree on something very small and
> simple" I guess it would best be left for another rfc
> >
> > 3) When are annotations executed? On ->getAnnotations()? Every time?
> given they are context free, I suppose they would be executed on the
> first call only
>
> but what about this kind of annotation classes? :
>
> class Counter {
> private static $i = 0;
> private $n;
> function __construct() {
> $this->n = self::$i++;
> }
> function get() { return $this->n; }
> }
>
> both the getAnnotations() calls order and whether or not annotations are
> executed every time would make a difference
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
>
> --
> Mathieu Rochette
>
>
