This is just a brainstorming, and we are not going to provide a working solution tomorrow :) You have enough time :)
I don't like phpdoc approach because we have to define, parse and compile new syntax for constraints. Would constraint be able to call other functions? include external php files? etc? For me it's an overhead. We may reuse PHP syntax. Thanks. Dmitry. On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 7:11 PM, François Laupretre <franc...@tekwire.net> wrote: > > De : yohg...@gmail.com [mailto:yohg...@gmail.com] De la part de Yasuo > Ohgaki > > > We don't have to integrate DbC into phpdoc. phpdoc may have integration > of new DbC syntax. > > I think it's helpful even if phpdoc copies post/pre condition as > document. > > > > There are too many possibility for DbC syntax. > > We are better to choose something in common among languages. > > No. The more I detail the concept, the more I read alternative proposals, > the more I consider extending phpdoc is the best solution. As I explain in > the RFC, both concepts are closely related, and that's the only solution > I've seen so far that preserves BC. I could add that it proposes a solution > to issues not even detected nor discussed in alternative proposals, like > the syntax for return value, separate check for arguments returned by ref, > built-in type checks, etc. Before we choose an alternative syntax, I think > we should have good reasons, not 'Hey, that's how it's done in D !'. If > there's a good reason to copy D or Eiffel syntax, let's adopt it, but I > haven't read any good reason so far. And D is not so widely used so there's > no user habit. We can copy the concept without copying the syntax. > > I think we're going too fast here. Before giving up and switching to > another syntax, can you give me a little time to present what I have in > mind. I started writing it yesterday evening and it will be ready tomorrow > morning (UTC). Then, we can make a decision. > > Cheers > > François > > > >
