Now that's something we can agree on :D
We can reduce the syntax added to simply being the attribute tag before
the standard syntax for a function call/class creation.
This means functions can be attributes too (as if that is useful...)!
This is a function being used as an attribute
attribut
I’m not the only one in this thread repeating himself to make a point :)
What I opposed is the notion that ‘everyone wants some sort of meta attribute
support’. Maybe I read too much into it but I read it as implying we need
something substantial that’s new.
Either way, I’m fine with going in
I think everyone is jumping the gun on this. Let's let Alec, et al. finish
the newly proposed RFC and then argue about it. If the consensus is still
that the complexity and drag in the introduced syntax outweighs the
benefits, we put it to bed or try again. Fair enough?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 4:29, "guilhermebla...@gmail.com" <
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Stas,
> >
> > Ok, so you think I should just consider everyone want some sort of
> > meta attribute support and start discussing the topics
On Nov 17, 2010, at 4:29, "guilhermebla...@gmail.com"
wrote:
> Hi Stas,
>
> Ok, so you think I should just consider everyone want some sort of
> meta attribute support and start discussing the topics?
Of course not. Assuming meta support requires substantial additions of syntax
then it's ve
Fair enough. I'm bias towards the C# annotation syntax, so that's my
attraction to it.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Dave Ingram wrote:
> On 17/11/10 06:38, Will Fitch wrote:
> > I like the idea, Alec.
> >
> > My only question is, syntactically, what difference would using a
> keyword,
> > i
On 17/11/10 06:38, Will Fitch wrote:
> I like the idea, Alec.
>
> My only question is, syntactically, what difference would using a keyword,
> in this case "attribute", as opposed to brackets "[]"?
I would say that it provides better searchability -- it's easier for
people new to the feature to re
On 16/11/10 21:56, Alec wrote:
> [snip]
>
> attribute RestMethod('/do/something', 'Do Stuff', 'Does something.',
> array(
> 'arg1' => 'A cool argument!'
> ));
> public static DoSomething($arg1) {
> ...
>
> or
>
> attribute Example('arg', 'arg2', 3, (time() > 0 ? true : false));
> class Demo {
I like the idea, Alec.
My only question is, syntactically, what difference would using a keyword,
in this case "attribute", as opposed to brackets "[]"?
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Alec Gorge wrote:
> Ah, thanks.
>
> This is my proposed syntax and examples of it being used:
> https://gist.
Ah, thanks.
This is my proposed syntax and examples of it being used:
https://gist.github.com/702925
Here is my answer to those questions:
- PHP code
- See the gist for syntax
- Return object instances of the annotation because then you can call
methods on the annotation if you need to (it t
Hi Alec,
Here is the quick list:
- Where to put the metadata information? docblock or though php code?
- Syntax (based on first decision)
- Return would be an array or object instances
- Compile time or run time (decision is more about APC being able to
cache, but instances being created at runtim
In my opinion (as a person with 0 karma), I think that sounds reasonable
because most people are most concerned about the actual implementation
(syntax, performance, apc etc) because I don't think many argue that
Metadata doesn't have value.
What are the 5 different discussion topics you are t
Hi Stas,
Ok, so you think I should just consider everyone want some sort of
meta attribute support and start discussing the topics?
Should I separate it in different threads or put it all here?
The subject is big and I identify at least 5 different discussions
that can diverge.
Cheers,
On Wed,
Hi!
I'm able to write 10 RFC's, but none will care until we reach this
list with a patch.
Not entirely true. Patch helps, but with feature this big and complex
having consensus on design before actually implementing it may be better
and save you some time.
As for polls, I think generic "havi
Hi Stas,
A full RFC will be written based on results of polls.
I'm able to write 10 RFC's, but none will care until we reach this
list with a patch.
So instead of lose time, I prefer to discuss what can be done here,
write an RFC then finally implement it.
But without having feedback from core de
Ok, I will do that. I already have some code examples worked up from
earlier.
I have just registered on the wiki (same email as here). Are you able to
give me access to the rfc namespace so I start the rfc?
Also, do you want me to start a new thread or just post the rfc as a
reply to this th
Hi!
I think my reply ( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/63203 )
addresses this. It doesn't introduce any new language constructs per se.
You could make it even more standard and clear by adding "new" after
"annotation".
How about making it a full RFC? It's kind of hard to keep tra
I think my reply ( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/63203 )
addresses this. It doesn't introduce any new language constructs per se.
You could make it even more standard and clear by adding "new" after
"annotation".
Just as a thought: instead of annotation, metadata could also be
But, in my opinion at least, parsing docblocks also brings in a new
syntax. The only difference that I see is that parsing docblocks is
wrapped in a comment and not syntax highlighted by most editors.
Just out of curiosity, how did traits make it into 5.4 if we are
avoiding syntax changes? You
19 matches
Mail list logo
