On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>wrote:
> On 1/9/13 9:31 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>
>> they are nearly syntactically identical to executable code.
>>>
>>
>> "nearly" is the keyword there. They lack the ending semi-colon. Sure,
>> this might mean PHP has to actually use an abstract syntax tree, but
>> that's long overdue in my opinion. I know others disagree. This is
>> only tangentially related, so I won't say more.
>>
>
> Even if the parser is adjusted to cope with that, it's still an extremely
> subtle difference for developers to keep track of. Consider the following
> procedural snippets:
>
> @Foo[narf]
> function something($narf) {}
>
> @Foo[narf];
> function something($narf) {}
>
> The first one says that $narf should pass @Foo validation.
>
> The second one says to call the function Foo with the string constant
> "narf", and then define a function called something().
>
> That's the sort of subtle bug that's just begging for someone to make an
> honest typo and spend the next 6 hours tracking it down, until he realizes
> what he did and proceeds to bang his head against his desk in frustration
> for missing such a "simple" error.
>
> Let's not subsidize the headache drug manufacturers with PHP syntax
> decisions. :-)
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
>
I agree with the risks here.
But i also really prefer a Token: <content> approach then a [open token]
<content> [close token] approach
Can we use a combination? like:
@annot: Foo[narf]
--
Rafael Dohms
PHP Evangelist and Community Leader
http://doh.ms
http://wwwamsterdamphp.nl
