this won't implement features necessary for phpDocumentor, Doctrine, etc.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com > <mailto:rowan.coll...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Is there any value in deciding the initial syntax for 7.0, and > implementing only non-parameterised annotations, i.e. you can call > hasAnnotation(string): bool but nothing else? > > > Dmitry Stogov wrote on 16/02/2015 16:02: > >> this will work, of course, and robust implementation wouldn't take more >> than a day :) >> but it'll require user-level parser again. no big advantage in comparison >> to doc-block. >> > > No user-level parser would be required (or even possible), because > parameters would be illegal, not just unparsed. > > So, for example, the following would be legal in 7.0: > > <<IsMagic>> > function foo() { } > > if ( (new ReflectionFunction('foo'))->hasAnnotation('IsMagic') ) ... > > > But the following would be illegal, even though a similar syntax would be > being prototyped for use in 7.1: > > <<HasMagic('Expelliamus!')>> > function foo() { } > > $magic = (new ReflectionFunction('foo'))->getAnnotation('HasMagic'); > > > A few use cases would be possible just with boolean flags, and it would > give us a base to work with going forward. > > It also avoids the situation (as discussed in another thread) of trying to > implement every detail of the implementation of the feature before checking > for consensus. In this case we can check that people are in favour of: > 1) adding annotations as a core feature > 2) the basic syntax (<Foo>, <<Foo>>, [Foo], @Foo, etc) > > If there's an overwhelming Yes, that's a confidence boost for whoever > works on the harder parts over the following months. > > > Regards, > -- > Rowan Collins > [IMSoP] > > >
