> OTOH, don't our new parsing improvements allow us to handle syntax like
this without introducing a keyword that would be forbidden as
class/function name
Not that I am aware of, the AST stuff didn't touch the parser like that, it
has the same limitations it had before AFAIK.
Cheers
Joe
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> wrote:
> > Just a thought - what about something like __pre/__post? We own __*, so
> no BC problems.
>
> I'm not married to the words being used, at all.
>
> I think this is a good idea, we would need __pre, __post , and
> __invariant, or some combination of three.
>
> Any objection to using __ prefixed names, and any other suggestion for
> them, or just use the above ?
>
> Cheers
> Joe
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> >> function foo($a)
>> >> require($a >= 0)
>> >> {
>> >> }
>> >
>> > This is a step better but still we have the similar issues with
>> > readability, to which reuse of 'require' is added.
>>
>> Just a thought - what about something like __pre/__post? We own __*, so
>> no BC problems.
>> OTOH, don't our new parsing improvements allow us to handle syntax like
>> this without introducing a keyword that would be forbidden as
>> class/function name? The context is pretty unambiguous here.
>> --
>> Stas Malyshev
>> smalys...@gmail.com
>>
>
>
