Dmitry, > The difference is small, but attributes standardize syntax and provide standard storage with simple API.
It's too small. If we go ahead now and introduce constants or strings as the only supported form of attribute, we will never get anything more than that. > I don't know about such hooks in the engine. do I miss something? :) There's no zend_set_magic_comments hook :D There's mechanisms like op array ctor, reserved space, and overloading all kinds of ways ... it's doable ... you already know it is ... > I missed. do you speak about attributes with AST or doc-comments with strings. I'm saying I decided the write some extension code that "parses" doc comments, in anticipation that we would eventually get ast attributes ... Cheers Joe On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > > > On 05/11/2016 11:42 AM, Joe Watkins wrote: > > Dmitry, > > > Except the fact, that doc-comment content don't have to conform to any > rules > > Nor does an attributes value that is just a string, that isn't validated > by compiler ... it doesn't *have* to conform to any rules. > > That's exactly what people are voting for though, that seems to be what > people want > > > I think, different people expect very different functionality and many > just don't like to introduce replacement for existing doc-comments. > Probably the majority of voters against AST, just don't care about > applications of this feature (extensible compiler, meta-programming, > compile-time execution, etc) > > > I desperately do not want that. I don't see the remarkable difference > (although there is obviously difference) between attributes that are just > strings or constant values and doc comments. > > The difference is small, but attributes standardize syntax and provide > standard storage with simple API. > In my view, better to get at least this than nothing. > > > > and you have to parse it and extract the necessary part of meta > information every time you need it. > > You know that's not really true, there are already hooks and mechanisms to > "compile" strings in doc comments, I used them literally yesterday ... > > I don't know about such hooks in the engine. do I miss something? :) > > > I used them in anticipation that we would get a superior solution some > time soon ... it now looks like we will not :( > > > I missed. do you speak about attributes with AST or doc-comments with > strings. > > > I don't want to invent ways to parse code, or extract it from anywhere ... > we have a whole engine, an entire folder of code dedicated to that, it is > nonsensical not to utilize it. > > > You shouldn't worry about parsing PHP grammar in attribute strings, we > would just provide an API call in the engine that reuses zendparse() and > returns AST. > This would take just 10-20 C lines. > > Thanks. Dmitry. > > > Cheers > Joe > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 05/11/2016 09:57 AM, Joe Watkins wrote: >> >> Dmitry, >> >> > but it's possible to get the same power translating string values of >> attributes into AST in the hooks. >> >> Aware. >> >> Enough of the complexity is already the responsibility of the consumer of >> the attributes. >> >> It's already possible to get strings (and so AST) from doc comments, we >> don't need anything new if that's all you want to do. >> >> Essentially, moving something from doc comments to <<here>> makes zero >> sense to me. >> >> >> Except the fact, that doc-comment content don't have to conform to any >> rules, and you have to parse it and extract the necessary part of meta >> information every time you need it. It's not a big problem to do this using >> Doctrine library, but how are you going to do this in a compiler hook? >> >> >> >> Cheers >> Joe >> >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Dmitry Stogov < <dmi...@zend.com> >> dmi...@zend.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 05/11/2016 09:02 AM, Joe Watkins wrote: >>> >>> Morning Dmitry, >>> >>> > On the other hand simple string may be parsed into AST with just one >>> additional call to ast\compile_string(). >>> >>> You're not really suggesting that I write my tools in user land, are you >>> ? It's me, Joe :)ce >>> >>> >>> At first days of RFC discussion Sara pointed on over-design regarding >>> AST. >>> I saw sense in here comments and updated RFC. >>> >>> >>> I *only* want attributes as they were originally proposed, and I can't >>> vote to reflect that. >>> >>> As discussed in private, what I want is attributes, as originally >>> proposed, and a hookable compiler; Anything else is not good enough. >>> >>> >>> Personally, I'm for AST as well, but it's possible to get the same power >>> translating string values of attributes into AST in the hooks. >>> >>> Thanks. Dmitry. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Joe >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Dmitry Stogov < <dmi...@zend.com> >>> dmi...@zend.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Joe, >>>> >>>> The sense in native support for AST is questionable. >>>> >>>> >>>> On one hand this allows syntax verification. >>>> >>>> >>>> On the other hand simple string may be parsed into AST with just one >>>> additional call to ast\compile_string(). >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks. Dmitry. >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* Joe Watkins < <pthre...@pthreads.org>pthre...@pthreads.org> >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 11, 2016 7:46:09 AM >>>> *To:* Björn Larsson >>>> *Cc:* Dmitry Stogov; PHP internals >>>> *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP Attributes >>>> >>>> Morning Dmitry, >>>> >>>> I'm not really happy with the voting options here. >>>> >>>> I would not vote in favour of a patch that does not include support >>>> for AST, that's a completely different feature. >>>> >>>> As it is, I have to vote yes in favour of AST, but it may be >>>> counted as a vote in favour of attributes without AST ... >>>> >>>> This doesn't seem right ... I don't want attributes without AST, >>>> and there is no voting option to reflect that. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Björn Larsson < >>>> <bjorn.x.lars...@telia.com>bjorn.x.lars...@telia.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Den 2016-05-11 kl. 00:00, skrev Dmitry Stogov: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05/11/2016 12:29 AM, Björn Larsson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Den 2016-05-10 kl. 20:29, skrev Dmitry Stogov: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi internals, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've started voting on "PHP Attributes" RFC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attributes> >>>>>>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attributes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In my opinion, "PHP Attributes" might be a smart tool for PHP >>>>>>>> extension, but it's not going to be the end of the world, if we >>>>>>>> decided to >>>>>>>> live with doc-comments only. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. Dmitry. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the good work. Regarding naming, I googled >>>>>>> "PHP attributes" vs "PHP annotations" and looking at the >>>>>>> result, my view is that that Annotation is a better naming >>>>>>> then Attributes. Any hope in changing it? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The more I listen to arguments of adepts of existing PHP annotation >>>>>> systems, the more I think, that "PHP attributes" is the right name for >>>>>> this >>>>>> proposal. >>>>>> This feature is not just for PHP annotation systems. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thats a fair point, so Annotation it's not. Still, when I hear PHP >>>>> attributes I associate it with class / function attributes. Maybe >>>>> just a question getting used to the naming. Hm, wonder if PHP >>>>> directives could have been an option? >>>>> >>>>> Regards //Björn >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>>>> To unsubscribe, visit: <http://www.php.net/unsub.php> >>>>> <http://www.php.net/unsub.php>http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
