Hi Pierrick,
I've taken just a quick look into concept and patch. It looks
interesting and might be useful in some areas, but I see several
significant problems:
1) Have you thought about compatibility with opcode caches? In case I
understood properly, you store annotation as a HashTable of
Hi Derick,
We had a long discussion on RFC and hear you can see the summary of my
opinion:
I think removing the strict type hinting (reverting semantic back to
5.3), but keeping the new syntax and reflection API is a good decision.
However I definitely against of delegation of type-hinting
Hi Dmitry,
First thanks for having a look at the patch and taking some time to
give your feedback ! It's much appreciated
2010/9/8 Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com:
Hi Pierrick,
I've taken just a quick look into concept and patch. It looks interesting
and might be useful in some areas, but I
Pierrick Charron wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
First thanks for having a look at the patch and taking some time to
give your feedback ! It's much appreciated
2010/9/8 Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com:
Hi Pierrick,
I've taken just a quick look into concept and patch. It looks interesting
and might be
Hi Dmitry,
Comments goes inline.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Pierrick Charron wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
First thanks for having a look at the patch and taking some time to
give your feedback ! It's much appreciated
2010/9/8 Dmitry Stogov
Hi,
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 13:44 -0300, Guilherme Blanco wrote:
2) I suppose that usage of annotation would be quite rare case. I don't
think it make sense to extend each op_array, property and class with
additional annotations field. I think it's possible to have a separate
Hi Johannes,
Comments inline.
2010/9/8 Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de:
Hi,
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 13:44 -0300, Guilherme Blanco wrote:
2) I suppose that usage of annotation would be quite rare case. I don't
think it make sense to extend each op_array, property and class with
Hi!
I would suggest to go forward with this decision partially (without
callback and without zval** instead of zval*)
Actually, if we have the information in the data structures, wouldn't it
be pretty easy for xdebug (or any other extension), while intercepting
function entrance (which
Hi!
[JoinTable(
name=users_phonenumbers,
joinColumns=array(
[JoinColumn(name=user_id, referencedColumnName=id)]
),
inverseJoinColumns=array(
[JoinColumn(name=phonenumber_id, referencedColumnName=id,
unique=true)]
)
)]
[Validation([Email(checkMX =
Hello Stas,
I agree, using an array like syntax would make the intent much clearer
in the context of PHP, the syntax is just slightly more verbose:
[JoinTable(array(
name = users_phonenumbers,
joinColumns = array(
array(name = user_id, referendedColumnName = id),
),
10 matches
Mail list logo
