Re: Design by Contract
| From: | Yasuo Ohgaki | Date: | Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:18:16 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Design by Contract | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-81943@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi Francois,
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:11 AM, François Laupretre <francois@tekwire.net>
wrote:
> > De : yohgaki@gmail.com [mailto:yohgaki@gmail.com] De la part de Yasuo
> Ohgaki
>
> > We don't have to integrate DbC into phpdoc. phpdoc may have integration
> of new DbC syntax.
> > I think it's helpful even if phpdoc copies post/pre condition as
> document.
> >
> > There are too many possibility for DbC syntax.
> > We are better to choose something in common among languages.
>
> No. The more I detail the concept, the more I read alternative proposals,
> the more I consider extending phpdoc is the best solution. As I explain in
> the RFC, both concepts are closely related, and that's the only solution
> I've seen so far that preserves BC. I could add that it proposes a solution
> to issues not even detected nor discussed in alternative proposals, like
> the syntax for return value, separate check for arguments returned by ref,
> built-in type checks, etc. Before we choose an alternative syntax, I think
> we should have good reasons, not 'Hey, that's how it's done in D !'. If
> there's a good reason to copy D or Eiffel syntax, let's adopt it, but I
> haven't read any good reason so far. And D is not so widely used so there's
> no user habit. We can copy the concept without copying the syntax.
>
> I think we're going too fast here. Before giving up and switching to
> another syntax, can you give me a little time to present what I have in
> mind. I started writing it yesterday evening and it will be ready tomorrow
> morning (UTC). Then, we can make a decision.
>
I didn't notice you have updated the RFC sorry. Sure, I'll read it and
respond.
Regards,
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net