Re: [RFC] Simple Annotations

On 14/05/2016 20:49, Rasmus Schultz wrote:

Dan, I've added a note about special annotations to the "future scope" section, naming the memoization-annotation as an example.

This doesn't really explain how such a feature would fit it into the proposal. For instance, how can we avoid the syntax clashing with existing userland issues? Given that annotations in this proposal don't have names, we can't just reserve all names beginning "__" or "php\". Perhaps they would be pseudo-function calls, like <<__memoize()>>? How would that (or any other undefined function) act if accessed on a version that didn't have the feature? I realise you don't want to define the details, but an idea of what an annotation targeting the engine would look like would make the future-proofing clearer. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]