On 04/22/2016 05:15 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
I would like to present an RFC proposing support for native annotation.
I'm trying to imagine where the benefit of non-constant expressions comes in.
<<foo($a < 1)>>
Assuming we roll in php-ast at the same time (which is a big addition,
IMO, and deserves its own separate RFC), what are users meant to do
with this? Even if there's a use-case here, one could accomplish the
same thing with:
<<foo('$a < 1')>>
And manually running that string into php-ast if that's what the caller wanted.
Good point. It's really not a big deal to run
ast\parse_code($r->getAttributes()["foo"])
This would simplify the implementation a bit.
Also, maybe I missed it, but I didn't see an answer to the question of
ambiguity between parsing the above as a straight string, versus
parsing it as a ZEND_AST_ZVAL. I'm sure the answer is "If the AST
tree is just a ZVAL, then it's provided as the compile-time
expression, but what about something else like this:
<<foo(1+1)>>
Logically, this is reducible to a single compile-time value, but it's
a complex expression, so would it be the value int(2)? Or
ZEND_AST_BINARY_OP(int(1), int(1))?
Currently this going to be an AST - ZEND_AST_BINARY_OP(int(1), int(1))
I just think that over-engineers what should be a simple annotation feature.
This makes sense. I think, I'll follow your suggestion.
The only missing ability is syntax check for <expression> attribute values.
All that said, I love the proposal overall, and I can't wait to
propose builtin annotations like <<__Memoize>>, <<__Mock>>, and
similar.
I'm looking forward as well. :)
Thanks. Dmitry.
-Sara
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
