Re: Design by Contract
| From: | Joe Watkins | Date: | Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:12:47 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Design by Contract | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-82450@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> Just a thought - what about something like __pre/__post? We own __*, so
no BC problems.
I'm not married to the words being used, at all.
I think this is a good idea, we would need __pre, __post , and __invariant,
or some combination of three.
Any objection to using __ prefixed names, and any other suggestion for
them, or just use the above ?
Cheers
Joe
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >> function foo($a)
> >> require($a >= 0)
> >> {
> >> }
> >
> > This is a step better but still we have the similar issues with
> > readability, to which reuse of 'require' is added.
>
> Just a thought - what about something like __pre/__post? We own __*, so
> no BC problems.
> OTOH, don't our new parsing improvements allow us to handle syntax like
> this without introducing a keyword that would be forbidden as
> class/function name? The context is pretty unambiguous here.
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalyshev@gmail.com
>