On 14/05/2016 20:49, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
Dan,
I've added a note about special annotations to the "future scope"
section, naming the memoization-annotation as an example.
This doesn't really explain how such a feature would fit it into the
proposal. For instance, how can we avoid the syntax clashing with
existing userland issues? Given that annotations in this proposal don't
have names, we can't just reserve all names beginning "__" or "php\".
Perhaps they would be pseudo-function calls, like <<__memoize()>>? How
would that (or any other undefined function) act if accessed on a
version that didn't have the feature?
I realise you don't want to define the details, but an idea of what an
annotation targeting the engine would look like would make the
future-proofing clearer.
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
