Re: [RFC] PHP Attributes

On 04/22/2016 02:02 AM, Ryan Pallas wrote:

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com <mailto:dmitry@zend.com>> wrote:

        About expressions, isn't there an ambigoutiy? <<test(1)>> is a
        "plain" name, value based attribute. But it could also be an
        ast\node of a function call to "test(1)"

    even in AST scalars are scalars.
    so <<test(1+2)>> would return: ast\node "+" with two children
    int(1) and int(2).

        I am wondering if they shouldn't get their own start/end signs
        to clear that up, <<<test(1)>> vs <<test(1)>>.

    no need for extra complication.

Since the encapsulated meta-data is an AST, and as you say any valid php expression will be valid here, what about bit shifting? <<Test(FOO >> BAR)>> This works because attributes are implemented as native part of context-free PHP grammar.

Are there concerns about finding the T_SR token, which is also the end annotation symbol? I've not done any work in the parser, so excuse me if that is an insanely stupid question :) Not a problem. Better to get false alarm then miss a real one :)

Otherwise, I think this RFC looks great, and appreciate your work on this :) Thanks. Dmitry.

Ryan