Hello,
I was wondering how early a zend_eval_string call can be made.
Currently it works fine in a PHP_FUNCTION(), but was hoping to put it in
a PHP_MINIT() in hopes of it just executing once.
It seems PHP_MINIT() is too early, and is causing failures. I came
across PHP_GINIT_FUNCTION(
Inline response:
On 9/17/10 1:57 PM, Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote:
On Fri Sep 17 01:06 PM, Guilherme Blanco wrote:
Another good example is to map your persistence data into your
Entities. Doctrine 2 implements this and I think that way you can
compare easily with the PHP code alternative. I'd lik
On Fri Sep 17 01:06 PM, Guilherme Blanco wrote:
>
> Another good example is to map your persistence data into your
> Entities. Doctrine 2 implements this and I think that way you can
> compare easily with the PHP code alternative. I'd like to ask you to
> compate the same Entity mapped through
On 9/17/10 12:49 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
userspace) 2) adding syntax (probably can't be done in userspace unless
somebody thinks of a clever way to do it).
I've thought of it, and I guess I'll give it a go, I could make this a
proposal if it makes sense to.
The idea is to make the Zend En
Hi!
Look at the xdoclet fiasco, that should finish to convince you that
phpdoc has nothing to do with annotations.
It would be useful if, for those unfamiliar with xdoclet history, you
would explain why it was a fiasco.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.
Hi!
Unless the PHP parser engine can be extended via normal or zend
extensions, no, it can't. And pretty useless to have annotations
outside the core...
I disagree - it would be very useful *if* we could do that. I.e. if we
could associate data with classes, functions, etc. without actually
Hi Richard,
Comments inline
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Richard Quadling wrote:
> On 17 September 2010 14:17, Rafael Dohms wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Christian Kaps
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:02:10 +0100, Richard Quadling
>>> wrote:
One thing that did come
On 17 September 2010 14:17, Rafael Dohms wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Christian Kaps
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:02:10 +0100, Richard Quadling
>> wrote:
>>> One thing that did come to mind is if we ignore all the issues and
>>> complexities of actually implementing annotation
FWIW, I am in favour of something that allows the parsing of DocBlock comments
(should it just be DocBlock comments though?) and am implementation agnostic so
far (i have too little understanding of where in the core/extensions this would
need to sit).
This would then allow developers to hack o
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:41:33 +0100, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
wrote:
On 2010-09-16, "Gustavo Lopes" wrote:
Pointless.
Well, this will maybe speedup and standardize the usage of doc comments,
but it's very far from what we could do with real annotations.
Let's argue this one on its own meri
hi,
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
wrote:
> (I'm still not entirely convinced that the same goals could not be achieved
> via
> code written on top of a docblock parser extension.)
Look at the xdoclet fiasco, that should finish to convince you that
phpdoc has nothing
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Christian Kaps
wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:02:10 +0100, Richard Quadling
> wrote:
>> One thing that did come to mind is if we ignore all the issues and
>> complexities of actually implementing annotations, are annotations
>> useful to a significant number of u
On 2010-09-16, "Gustavo Lopes" wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:56:04 +0100, Chad Fulton
> wrote:
>
> > Based on comments from the annotations thread, I have created a
> > docBlock parser RFC at http://wiki.php.net/rfc/docblockparser
> >
> > This RFC does not deal with annotations per se, but on
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:02:10 +0100, Richard Quadling
wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> In trying to follow the annotations threads currently running, I've
> come to realise just how little I understand a LOT of what I read
> here.
>
> But, then again, I don't need to, so hurrah for me. I try to follow,
>
hi,
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Richard Quadling wrote:
> Is this something that can just be an extension with its own evolution?
Unless the PHP parser engine can be extended via normal or zend
extensions, no, it can't. And pretty useless to have annotations
outside the core...
Cheers,
-
Hello all.
In trying to follow the annotations threads currently running, I've
come to realise just how little I understand a LOT of what I read
here.
But, then again, I don't need to, so hurrah for me. I try to follow,
but, #fail most of the time.
One thing that did come to mind is if we ignore
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 13:56 -0700, Chad Fulton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Based on comments from the annotations thread, I have created a
> docBlock parser RFC at http://wiki.php.net/rfc/docblockparser
>
> This RFC does not deal with annotations per se, but only with the idea
> of adding a function to t
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Stanley Sufficool wrote:
> After reading a little of this back and forth of annotations,
> validation and documentation (oh my). I thought, why not just abstract
> the standard types (string, int, bool, etc...) to SPL classes.
>
> This would allow for validation, d
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Chad Fulton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Based on comments from the annotations thread, I have created a
> docBlock parser RFC at http://wiki.php.net/rfc/docblockparser
>
> This RFC does not deal with annotations per se, but only with the idea
> of adding a function to th
19 matches
Mail list logo
