Re: [RFC] PHP Attributes

On 04/24/2016 03:33 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:

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(){}

} The proposed by you "@..." syntax just won't fit into PHP grammar, because @ used as silence operator.

Attribute, syntax is taken from HHVM. I don't see a big reason to introduce more fragmentation into PHP world. Personally I don't see "foo(a,b,c)" as a function, I see this as a predicate. It's possible to extend RFC with additional use-cases, but the longer the RFC the less people read it. Thanks. Dmitry.