writing their own...
- Rasmus Schultz
1.0.0 and 1.0 are different things.
I think the problem is, version numbers are different things to different
people - I guess the documentation maybe isn't clear enough on precisely
what version numbering scheme it's using. To most people, 1 and 1.0 are
the same thing, because they look like
using this particular version-numbering scheme, 1.01 is equal to 1.1 - I
don't think that's a bug, because the version-numbers in this
version-numbering scheme are integers, not decimals.
so I believe this is in fact as correct as it can be, since numbers like
01 should not really be used in this
I was doing some work with the Reflection API, and I ran into something
missing from ReflectionParameter.
Turns out, there's no way to get the class-name of a parameter, short of
calling getClass() - the problem with that is, there's no way to get the
class-name of a parameter without causing the
Is this RFC outdated?
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jsonable
We have JsonSerializable in 5.4 - this appears to be essentially the same thing?
(Should it be moved from draft to implemented, or should it just
be removed? It was not implemented with the names used in this RFC.)
I was also looking at
Is this all the documentation there is for the use-clause for
anonymous closures?
http://us2.php.net/manual/en/functions.anonymous.php
For one, it would be nice to have documentation that explains whether
the variables listed in the use-clause are copied/referenced at
declaration-time or at
How come there is no straight-foward obvious way to simply remove a given
value from an array?
Just look at the number of horrible ways people solve this obvious problem:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7225070/php-array-delete-by-value-not-key
Shouldn't we have something simple, like:
if(($key = array_search($del_val, $messages)) !== false) {
unset($messages[$key]);
}
Nothing horrible here.
I disagree - this is (or should be) a simple, atomic operation...
yet, you've got a function-call, an intermediary variable, a boolean test,
and an unset statement repeating the
.
And it doesn't help make codebases more legible when people come up with 25
different ways to do it.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 08/17/2012 05:21 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
if(($key = array_search($del_val, $messages)) !== false) {
unset
:
On 16.08.2012, at 0:18, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
How come there is no straight-foward obvious way to simply remove a given
value from an array?
Well, this sounds like a reason for creating SplSet class
Absolutely, you're right. I have a tendency to get dragged into those.
I apologize.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
Could we please stop these pseudo-arguments?
I have a login (mindplay) but I do not have permission to post or edit
anything on the wiki...
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Will Fitch willfi...@php.net wrote:
Please let this die until someone is serious enough to come up with an
rfc. This has been nothing but counterproductive arguing.
/321ad9b4b8c4e1713488
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi,
2012/8/21 Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk:
I have a login (mindplay) but I do not have permission to post or edit
anything on the wiki...
I've created RFC for this
https://wiki.php.net
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Peter Nguyen pe...@likipe.se wrote:
I know very little about AOP and don't pretend to know a lot, but how
would we benefit
from directly adding it into core instead of taking the approach FLOW3 did?
as I see it, the problem with AOP in PHP is the same as
wrote:
That's why I thnk the extension is superior to all other solutions,
because it doesn't require code generation in userland. Also, it will be
possible to backtrace to the declaration of the aspects.
2012/8/26 Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Peter
Having thought about this for a while, I think this is a bad idea - here's why:
$array = array(1001, 1002, 1003, 1004);
$number = $array[-1]; // = 1004
$number[-1] = 1005;
$number = $array[-1]; // =
Obviously, the last statement must return 1005, since otherwise that
Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
Having thought about this for a while, I think this is a bad idea - here's
why:
$array = array(1001, 1002, 1003, 1004);
$number = $array[-1]; // = 1004
$number[-1] = 1005
I opened this bug report 2 years ago:
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=52756
Is GD still actively maintained?
If it isn't, then perhaps it's time to start thinking about switching to a
graphics library that is maintained?
Perhaps something more modern with real drawing capabilities and a better
Jannik,
Thank you - this confirms I'm not crazy, or at least it's evidence to
support that theory ;-)
It may be OS specific - perhaps the Windows and OSX binaries are built
against a different build (or configuration) of FreeType?
Or it could be specific to 32 or 64 bit builds.
I have never
?
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
Jannik,
Thank you - this confirms I'm not crazy, or at least it's evidence to
support that theory ;-)
It may be OS specific - perhaps
Interesting technique:
http://ayende.com/blog/158721/rule-out-the-stupid-stuff-first-select-still-ainrsquo-t-broken
I wonder if this is applicable to PHP in any way? Would stream buffers
benefit from something like this?
Perhaps not, I just thought it was interesting enough to share - it's not
posting this for
debate.
Thanks,
Rasmus Schultz
Good point - I agree. Thanks for taking the time to think about this!
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:22 PM, jpauli jpa...@php.net wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Amaury Bouchard ama...@amaury.net
wrote:
Sounds to me like aspect-oriented programming, applied to object
construction.
Since I was the one who started this discussion, I'd like to reply to
some of these points.
First off, let me say - as you pointed out, when the values are
unique, they are best represented
as keys... however, this of course applies only to value-types, which
isn't the problem, and not
why I
Yeah, on that note - I've never understood what use this function is,
as it reuses object IDs... it will return the same hash for two
different objects during the same script execution - so it's unusable
as far as getting unique keys for objects... and I don't know what
else you could really use
the manual states, The implementation in SplObjectStorage returns the
same value as spl_object_hash() - so I don't know how this would
really work any better than a custom implementation.
perhaps safer would be to simply implement a collection-type that
requires the classes of elements in the
perhaps the worst case of misleading user comments to date... ;-)
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Sherif Ramadan theanomaly...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
the manual states, The implementation in SplObjectStorage returns the
same value
This looks great, and essentially has everything I had hoped for!
My only remaining comment is on the read-only and write-only keywords...
this seems really superfluous and strange to me - the syntax (using a
hyphenated keyword) and the feature itself, is way off the grid as compared
to other
There's no way to stop the developer from doing that without read-only.
Yes, there is - I don't even know why would write it that way - doesn't
seem to make much sense.
What you probably should be doing, is this:
class A {
private $seconds = 3600;
public $hours {
get() { return
Just a couple of quick remarks.
Clint wrote:
I'm not even sure that automatic backing fields are even desired, I never
felt the need to have them in C# and the only reason they were included is
because they were a part of Dennis's original proposal.
Automatic backing fields are indeed
Since there's a heavy debate on the list about strong typing right now, I
just want to briefly share my point of view.
PHP is not and won't be a strongly typed language. What it can be (and is
on the way to be, with Clint's work) is a language that supports
type-checking. Not the same as strongly
I second getting rid of write-onle - the only real case I can think of, is
something like a password property on a user/account model-type, which gets
encrypted and thus can't be read, and as Amaury pointed out, that should be
a setPassword() method instead, perhaps even a separate
Isn't this need basically covered by accessors?
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-as-implemented
- Rasmus
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:53 PM, internals-digest-h...@lists.php.net wrote:
From: Sebastian Krebs krebs@gmail.com
To: PHP internals list internals@lists.php.net
Cc:
agree and
would like to work on a new RFC.
- Rasmus Schultz
I've started working on a new proposal, but I'm getting hung up on the
syntax - if we can't use angle brackets anymore, what can we use? Virtually
every symbol on a standard US keyword is an operator of some sort, does
that mean those are all out of the question?
e.g. thinking of concrete
To summarize:
A native implementation of PHP-DOC block parser for run-time purposes
(annotation libraries) is already available in the Reflection API, and
already goes as deep as it needs to - going beyond simply finding and
extracting the docblocks would make little sense, as every annotation
I'm going to address these question in the proposal I'm working on - once
it's all in writing, I will post for debate.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:57 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
- Should we support nested annotations?
- How [Foo()] will be different from new
yours, and that's not necessarily something we should need to
agree upon.
Is it really the responsibility of the language to deliver high-level
features that support patterns?
Or should it deliver simpler features that support the implementation of
those patterns?
- Rasmus Schultz
at 5:29 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dkwrote:
I hear a lot of interesting arguments in this big annotation discussion,
and now there's the ongoing vision discussion, which got me thinking.
It is true that there is broad community interest in annotations - part of
the problem here
. resources, but
you could put your resources in an object and address that (very exotic)
need.
Bottom line, I'm not in favor of this idea - it just doesn't seem necessary
or really even beneficial to me.
- Rasmus Schultz
it here, and then we can discuss it...
Anthony
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk
wrote:
I just saw this RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreach-non-scalar-keys
By non-scalar, presumably we're talking about objects? In the numbers
that e.g. resources
This is a not a feature request, just a note on something that occurred to
me.
Since there is talk of native support for annotations again, it occurred to
me that part of the problem that every userland implementation and proposed
syntax deals with, along with native implementations in other
I've been thinking about this RCF for a while now:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/trailing-comma-function-args
It just doesn't seem necessary - the only time I've ever found something
like this to be necessary, is when a function takes closures or other very
long arguments, some of which are
, what do you think about having a way to statically
reference types and members?
Thanks,
Rasmus Schultz
and ReflectionMethod.
I could see this being really useful and powerful in view-engines,
object/relational-mappers, data-mappers, validation-frameworks, etc.
Nobody else thinks this is interesting?
- Rasmus Schultz
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Etienne Kneuss col...@php.net wrote:
Dear Rasmus
relying on static
helper-methods to modify their properties, and with no chance of any IDE
support.
Just putting that on the table...
- Rasmus Schultz
Is it a really big feature if it's just syntactic sugar and internally
stored as an array? say:
struct Color
{
public $r = 1.0;
public $g = 1.0;
public $b = 1.0;
}
Stored internally this might be something like:
array('__type'='Color', 'r'=1.0, 'g'=1.0, 'b'=1.0)
Have you worked
You're right, struct isn't the right word - value is probably more
accurate.
value Color
{
public $r = 1.0;
public $g = 1.0;
public $b = 1.0;
public function __construct($r, $g, $b)
{
$this-r = $r;
$this-g = $g;
$this-b = $b;
}
public function
April 2013 23:59, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
You're right, struct isn't the right word - value is probably more
accurate.
Actually structs in C# can have methods. They are exactly classes with
value type semantics (i.e. pass-by-value, like arrays in PHP).
I think struct would
in an internal array property somehow. Being able to juggle the
types by accessing a reserved key might actually be a benefit?
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
See the Structs Tutorial at msdn for a brief summary of structs in C#
- http://msdn.microsoft.com/en
On the other hand, I would just use an array. (without any magic
like methods on structs, yes you would have to write plain functions
and not use OOP like methods).
Yeah, that's what people are doing right now - the problem with that, is
you have the class-name referenced on every call, e.g.:
why not make struct almost like a class except
that $this is a copy (on write) - modifying and returning $this would
be a new instance of that struct/class. That would give you
public/private/static/variables/methods/interfaces/..., but it would
lead to another type.
As said, I don't know
This is all kinds of wrong:
http://3v4l.org/UZFME
So the order in which the properties were defined is the magic that makes
this work.
Wow. WTF?
Do I need to explain in detail why this is all kinds of effed up?
- Rasmus Schultz
Frankly, a magic method sounds like a much better solution than
auto-magically converting objects to arrays.
The problem with automatic conversion, is that the order of properties is
an implementation detail - the vsprintf() example perfectly illustrates the
problem:
class User
{
public
the actual
object-context. And the shortest possible syntax.
What do you think?
- Rasmus Schultz
,
and with support for static analysis.
- Rasmus Schultz
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dkwrote:
Okay,
No one seemed extremely interested in my notes about static
type-referenceshttp://marc.info/?t
25.04.2013 um 14:47 schrieb Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk:
[...]
What do you think?
I'm not sure about the operator character but the general idea is a good
one. Do you have a patch as a POC?
cu,
Lars
is evil about the thing I've described?
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 30 April 2013 01:45, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
The characters was an arbitrary choice, just for the sake of argument.
I'm not a C programmer, so I don't have a patch
); // = PropertyReference(class: 'User',
propertyName: 'name', object:User(...))
$foo = ^$user-name;
var_dump($foo-getValue()); // = 'Rasmus'
$foo-setValue('Bob');
var_dump($user-name); // = 'Bob'
Is that easier to understand?
- Rasmus Schultz
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr
I don't think that's necessary - the point of being able to do this, is to
apply meta-programming techniques, so in most situations, what matters is
the ability to quickly create object/property-references... using them will
usually happen inside some service component, e.g. a form-helper or
Any PHP dev who works with a mainstream framework does this daily, but the
frameworks rely on strings for property-names.
Take this example from the Symfony manual, for example:
class Task
{
protected $task;
protected $dueDate;
public
I suggested something similar earlier:
http://marc.info/?t=13632784962r=1w=2
However, I withdrew that idea, because I came to the realization that, for
practical applications, you usually need the object-context coupled with
the member-reference to do anything really useful.
A form-input
I've already demonstrated and explained what's wrong with strings.
Weird indirection is what we have in every mainstream framework right
now, where properties can be referenced only as strings - I gave a
real-world example of this, and demonstrated with a practical example how
the proposed
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
I would caution against generalising use cases. Personally, ::class is
something I can use multiple times a day. This I'm not so sure about.
Your use case is not my use case, and vice versa. :)
What is your use-case then?
@gmail.comwrote:
2013/5/1 Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk
Any PHP dev who works with a mainstream framework does this daily, but the
frameworks rely on strings for property-names.
Take this example from the Symfony manual, for example:
class Task
-
bitwise operators are not one of the most commonly used features in
high-level languages.
If the asterisk (or some other character) offers and easier implementation
path, whatever.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 04/30/2013 03:24 PM, Rasmus Schultz
This won't work, because Task::$task is a protected property
It will work for code that's properly documented with @property annotations.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Jannik Zschiesche he...@apfelbox.netwrote:
Hi,
Lazare Inepologlou linep...@gmail.com
Mittwoch, 1. Mai 2013 10:55
Note that the dynamic User::$name property in this example is properly
documented and will reflect in an IDE.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 04/30/2013 05:17 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
If the asterisk (or some other character) offers and easier
, Peter Lind peter.e.l...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 May 2013 14:35, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
This is a fringe feature, as evidenced by the fact that you
are having a hard time convincing people that it is needed
As with anything that isn't already established and well-known
at 10:24 AM, Etienne Kneuss col...@php.net wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
This is a fringe feature, as evidenced by the fact that you
are having a hard time convincing people that it is needed
As with anything that isn't already
Hi Mike,
Missed your e-mail because it went to the list only.
What you're demonstrating here is functionally equivalent to the simple
example I provided. (The example was intended to show how this feature
works, not necessarily how you would use it in practice.)
The key difference, is that a
in Drupal from now on, where everything is a
string or an array or a stdClass - at least then there's consistently no
checkable literals or IDE support for anything.
Awesome.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Etienne Kneuss col...@php.net wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras
extend.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: ekne...@gmail.com [mailto:ekne...@gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Etienne
Kneuss
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Mai 2013 22:12
An: Rasmus Schultz
Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf; Stas Malyshev; PHP internals
Betreff: Re: [PHP-DEV] property de-referencing
On Wed, May 1, 2013
of view. Imagine an
abstract syntax tree. They would look alike because ^$user-name; is only a
shorthand for new PropertyReference($user, 'name');
** **
Cheers,
Robert
** **
** **
** **
*Von:* Rasmus Schultz [mailto:ras...@mindplay.dk]
*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2013 01:51
...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/5/1 Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk
One could
write a PropertyReference class right now with literally the only
difference being the lack of a builtin operator (ie new
PropertyReference($obj, 'prop') versus ^$obj-prop): the fact that
nobody seems to have done
quit or think you're all done? :-)
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
authors[0].personalDetails[firstName]
which translates to
-getAuthors()[0]-getPersonalDetails()['firstName']
It's indirection via strings.
This particular example isn't great
a shorthand for “new PropertyReference($user, 'name');”?
Von: Rasmus Schultz [mailto:ras...@mindplay.dk]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2013 14:14
An: Robert Stoll
Cc: Etienne Kneuss; Rasmus Lerdorf; Stas Malyshev; PHP internals
Betreff: Re: [PHP-DEV] property de-referencing
As you described, IDEs
, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Lazare Inepologlou linep...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/5/2 Bernhard Schussek bschus...@gmail.com
2013/5/1 Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk
One could
write a PropertyReference class right now with literally the only
difference being the lack of a builtin operator (ie new
for instance, where property references don't
exist too.
Regards,
Seva
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dkwrote:
Any PHP dev who works with a mainstream framework does this daily, but the
frameworks rely on strings for property-names.
Take this example from
distinguishable string format could
represent it with no extra handling.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dkwrote:
Seva,
I understand that you can reference properties more consistently
using {fullClassName}::{fieldName} notation, but it's still a string
, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Seva Lapsha seva.lap...@gmail.com wrote:
Good developers research and find *best* ways to use the available tools
before inventing new ones.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
Well, I don't disagree as such - there's any number
:
Maybe PHP is just not for you. There are other languages in the sea :)
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dkwrote:
And what do good developers do when the best ways have long since been
identified - and the limitations of the language prevents them from
I just ran into this issue again:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2429642/why-its-impossible-to-throw-exception-from-tostring
Instead of throwing some nonsense you're not allowed to throw from here
error-message, how about actually unwinding the stack and passing the
exception to the global
calls made
to __toString() internally.
Wouldn't that at least suck less? :-)
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Etienne Kneuss col...@php.net wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Rasmus Schultz
m...@rasmus-schultz.comwrote:
I just ran into this issue again:
http://stackoverflow.com
there is one
framework that does not have some variety of accessors, and I have not
personally written a library or application in the past 5 or 6 years
without adding boilerplate practically identical to the above...
- Rasmus Schultz
-- Forwarded message --
From: Galen Wright
.
These functions need to work **for php developers**.
- Rasmus Schultz
/dispatcher might need to
autoload action-filters, etc.
Just a thought :-)
/ Rasmus Schultz
a thought - just throwing it out there for discussion, I'm not
submitting a complete RFC at this point :-)
/ Rasmus Schultz
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk
wrote:
Instead of trying to figure
It seems to me, there's a couple of things related to traits that were
missed in this implementation.
Take the following example:
?php
header('Content-type: text/plain');
class Cart
{
public static $instance;
# public function addItem(CartBehavior $item, $amount=1) // = script
terminates
will help us all better to understand
what the underlying issues/conceptual problems are we need to tackle,
either by improving the current implementation and/or documentation.
On 11 Nov 2011, at 17:00, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
class Cart
{
public static $instance;
# public function addItem
who can hook me up with a login, so I can contribute to the documentation?
Here's a better example of something useful that actually works:
Assuming your example is OK, you could edit the doc and submit it as a
patch at https://edit.php.net.
2011/12/4 Clint M Priest cpri...@zerocue.com:
Updated patch w/o white-space:
http://www.clintpriest.com/patches/accessors_v1.patch
In the end it is a relatively simple patch. The new syntax effectively
creates internal functions on the object and the system looks for those
functions and calls
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Christian Kaps christian.k...@mohiva.comwrote:
Hi,
I also find this syntax confusing and I think it has a huge WTF factor.
Some thoughts about the syntax:
- At the first glance, it isn't clear which visibility the getter or
setter has
- The extra
identifying it as
an accessor I'm saying be creative - don't just implement something
halfway for the sake of getting it done.
On Dec 7, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
if we're attempting to get around __set/get, let's not replace them with
more method implementations
I
understand the licensing may be an issue. It may be the argument that
outweighs everything else, but I'm curious to hear what else would keep you
from moving to Phalanger?
Thanks!
- Rasmus Schultz
You want to compare Mono performance to .NET performance - I'm sorry, but I
don't see how that's even relevant?
Your benchmark would be relevant if I was proposing you write a PHP
interpreter and run that on Mono.
What I'm proposing (and what Phalanger does) is to compile PHP code to CLR
Hello Folks,
We're hosting an increasing number of Drupal (ick) sites on our servers,
and while going over the diagnostic screen for APC, we noticed that
identical files are being cached multiple times.
For example, user.module is cached 3 times for 3 sites.
I've seen other people asking this
an
annotation. Neither approach is very elegant. This is addressed by the
language, by allowing you to import classes and interfaces - annotation
libraries could discover imported annotation types this way, but that
aspect of the source code is not exposed via Reflection.
Any thoughts?
- Rasmus
aspects of PHP that need attention...
2012/1/29 Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de
Hi,
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 18:51 -0500, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
I realized the other day that ReflectionFile is missing from the
Reflection
API.
As is ReflectionNamespace and some others one might think
to implement this feature in different ways...
2012/1/30 Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 09:33 -0500, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
From my point of view, the concept of a file has become semantically
more
important, and increasingly relevant to Reflection
1 - 100 of 271 matches
Mail list logo
