Re: [RFC] PHP Attributes

I am not arguing against the RFC nor the feature itself, on the contrary, I like it. I just do not like certain aspects and design decisions of it; that is all. Configuration and AOP are the best usecases for annotations and those should be stressed in the RFC. They are not mentioned at all! Another usecase that I am missing completely is the usage of it for documentation and static code analysis. I already mentioned the /throws/ annotation, this could help e.g. IDEs to warn you better about uncatched exceptions form methods you call. DbC is a possible usecase but better implemented at language level. The RFC could mention the possibility of it. However, right now it is the sole usecase beside the not very PHP applicable <<inline>> and <<jit>> examples. You see, this is more a problem of the RFC text and not of the feature. ;) Another think I complained about is the proposed syntax because it makes annotations look like function calls, which they simply are not and will not be. The syntax is misleading and a possible built-in functionality of reactive annotations (not saying we need them) at the language level for userland is blocked. I know I just repeated myself. The extension you mentioned works just fine without the brackets. @invariant CONDITION; class A { @ensure CONDITION; @require CONDITION; function f(){} } -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc