Hi!
> From: dmi...@zend.com
>> On 04/22/2016 02:46 PM, Thomas Punt wrote:
>> Hi Dmitry!
>>
>> Just a couple of comments on this:
>>
>> 1. I'd definitely reuse the php-ast extension for parsing the code into an
>> AST. It performs a number of transformations on PHP's underlying AST
>> that make it much nicer to use (namely better consistency). It is also
>> less fragile by having the abstraction between PHP's internal AST and
>> the AST that is exposed to userland (enabling for internal AST changes
>> without impacting the AST exposed to userland).
>
> I'm not sure. Both approaches make sense.
Whilst fragility is a concern, a bigger problem with not reusing
ast\parse_code() is that the AST produced will be different in even the
simplest of cases. For example, take the following simple expression:
$a> 2
With your attributes branch, this will produce an AST of:
object(ast\Node)#2 (4) {
["kind"]=> int(521) // ZEND_AST_GREATER
["flags"]=> int(0)
["lineno"]=> int(1)
["children"]=> [...]
}
Whereas with ast\parse_code(), the following AST will be produced:
object(ast\Node)#2 (4) {
["kind"]=> int(520) // AST_BINARY_OP
["flags"]=> int(256) // BINARY_IS_GREATER
["lineno"]=> int(1)
["children"]=> [...]
}
The php-ast extension transforms the special node types for>,>=, <, <=
into AST_BINARY_OP nodes with different flags set. This is just one
difference of many between the internal AST and the AST produced by
the php-ast extension.
>> 2. You mentioned about moving some of the php-ast extension into core.
>> I wonder if it would be better to just move the whole extension into the
>> core first, and then enable this functionality if the php-ast extension is
>> enabled.
>
> Even if we move php-ast into core (I think we will do it), it's going to
> be optional.
> However attributes should always work.
If we're going to reuse ast\parse_code(), then we will need the whole php-ast
extension in the core. It could therefore be made similar to the pcre, date,
Reflection, SPL, etc extensions, where it cannot be disabled.
>> Also, slightly tangential, but the RFC says attributes are supported on
>> class constants, yet doc comments (IIRC) are not. I wonder if support
>> for doc comments should be added for class constants?
>
> it is already implemented.
Oh right, my mistake. It does not seem to be exposed through php-ast or
reflection then.
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
-Tom
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
