Re: Autoboxing in php 5.1
| From: | Marcus Boerger | Date: | Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:58:05 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Autoboxing in php 5.1 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-14881@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello Johannes,
ups, reading again i see it, it was ReflectionProperty::getDocComment()
Johannes had a patch for that already and i asked for it some months ago
but i don't remember if there was anything against it.
marcus
Saturday, February 12, 2005, 6:45:22 PM, you wrote:
> Hello David,
> did i miss something?
> ReflectionClass::getDocComment() should be pretty fine.
> marcus
> Saturday, February 12, 2005, 12:54:28 PM, you wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> Can't you use the reflection API to get the data?
>> Not yet. My first feature request would be to add a getDocComment() to the
>> ReflectionProperty class. You can generate a WSDL file using the reflection
>> API but for the xml-schema part of the wsdl file you have to manually read
>> the sourcecode and find the comment prepending a class property (tokenizer
>> or regex) :(
>> Regards,
>> David
>>> At 11:19 PM 2/11/2005 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>>> >Hello Andi,
>>> >
>>> >Friday, February 11, 2005, 8:51:16 PM, you wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > At 01:33 PM 2/11/2005 -0500, Sean Coates wrote:
>>> > >>Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>> > >>>I think phpDoc is the solution because especially as we
>>> start going
>>> > >>>into the web services realm we're going to need to document more
>>> > >>>complex signatures and this kind of syntax won't be
>>> sufficient anyway.
>>> > >>>We will need to have a way to document web services so
>>> that we can
>>> > >>>auto-generate WSDL files.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>It would be nice to be able to (optionally) parse phpdoc comments
>>> > >>with the reflection API (not only return the docComment, but also
>>> > >>parse it into appropriate pieces), if this is going to be
>>> the "official" way to do this.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>Note: I'm not making any demands... just an idea/request.
>>> >
>>> > > Yes, that could be nice. Maybe someone will write an
>>> ext/docComment.
>>> > > Shouldn't be too hard.
>>> >
>>> >We'd need a new engine function pointer, one that allows to
>>> interpret
>>> >every docComment grabbed from the script :-)
>>> >