Re: RE: [RFC] Fast Parameter Parsing API

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote: > Am 26.5.2014 um 12:11 schrieb Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>: >> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Actually, that's exactly my the original API, just with ZP_OPTIONAL instead of >>> numbers for counts: >> >> Where was it proposed? I missed it. > > It wasn't proposed, it just was the initial patch I showed Dmitry when I made a small PoC. > >>> ZEND_PARSE_PARAMETERS(ZP_ARRAY(input) ZP_LONG(offset) ZP_OPTIONAL ZP_ZVAL(z_length) >>> ZP_BOOL(preserve_keys), { return; }) >>> (The return at the end is the error branch) >>> >>> I still prefer it that way, but Dmitry doesn't... >> >> Pretty much the same to me, with the same conclusion as well, sadly. >> >> I do not find it more readable than the one in the RFC and it does not >> solve the double or sometimes triple declarations of the arguments. >> And I do not even want to think about how it will look if we implement >> named arguments (let face it, we will have them). > > I highly doubt we can solve that problem. I think of it being impossible. > (When not trying abysmal things like parsing code upon compiling) > >>> It's the most readable I still think. >> >> zpp current usage is much more readable to me and less error prone >> while writing (clang plugin helping to check the syntax, see Johannes >> tools). > > Actually, with the new implementation, you don't even need a plugin for > checking types etc.. Even gcc does that for you with a nice warning. > >> May I point you to my questions in this thread about extending the >> reflection struct, add the necessary info (types) and maybe do the >> naming args while being at it? > > See above, I think of it as impossible. Ok, that's impossible. Now let us spend some time on that to figure out why :) -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org