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 <d...@dmi.me.uk> 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, > > 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 recognise what it means, and to search for > how to use it. I for one didn't understand what []-style annotations > were when I first saw them, and had no idea how to find out what it meant. > > > D > > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Alec Gorge <alecgo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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 think it would be useful) > >> - Can you APC cache ones that exist at compile time and then not cache > ones > >> that are created at runtime (since they are likely to change anyways, > >> request to request)? > >> - Method argument order to maintain consistency with PHP syntax. Named > >> arguments if PHP ever gets 'em. The grammar addition should use the > grammar > >> already there in the grammar file for calling methods so that it always > >> works with the new way of calling methods and functions. > >> - Yes for inherited metadata as long as you can filter it out (exactly > like > >> in the RFC). > >> > >> A another comment: > >> > >> getAnnotation($name) and getAnnotation($name, $type) both have to become > >> getAnnotations and then always return an array. This makes things more > >> consistent and allows for multiple metadata structures for each method. > >> > >> The gist I posted would be a fully working API (albeit very basic with > no > >> proper error/exception handling) if the url parsing code was put in, but > I > >> left it out for brevity. > >> > >> Opinions? > >> > >> -Alec > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 11/16/2010 9:39 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >>> 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 runtime automatically or no APC > >>> cache but instances only being created when requested (during > >>> Reflection call) > >>> - Named variables for instantiation or method arguments order? How > >>> would we deal with the need of Reflector during constructor if second > >>> sounds better? > >>> - Would we support inherited metadata? > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Alec Gorge<alecgo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> 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 thinking of, just > out > >>>> of > >>>> curiosity? > >>>> > >>>> Also, I can just post my syntax idea as a gist or pastie or something > >>>> instead of making an rfc... > >>>> > >>>> -Alec > >>>> > >>>> On 11/16/2010 9:29 PM, 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? > >>>>> 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, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Stas Malyshev< > smalys...@sugarcrm.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> 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 "having annotations" poll is not very > >>>>>> useful. > >>>>>> It's like having a poll "should we have cool features in PHP?" Of > >>>>>> course > >>>>>> we > >>>>>> should! The devil is in the details. And so far the details of this > >>>>>> thing > >>>>>> contain a significant number of devils we have to handle. > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > >>>>>> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > >>>>>> (408)454-6900 ext. 227 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >> -- > >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >> > >> > > > > -- Thanks, Will Fitch Director of Operations | Quepasa.com 931.205.8242 | will.fi...@quepasacorp.com Twitter: twitter.com/willfitch
