On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > > > > > > hi, > > > > > > > > During discussion of different ways of implementing "Design by > Contract" > > > we > > > > got an idea of using annotations. > > > > > > > > BTW: annotations are useful by their own and may be used for > different > > > > purposes. Support for annotations was proposed long time ago: > > > > > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations-in-docblock > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reflection_doccomment_annotations > > > > > > > > HHVM already implemented similar concept > > > > > > > > http://docs.hhvm.com/manual/en/hack.attributes.php > > > > > > > > I made a quick and dirty PoC that shows how we may implement > annotations > > > in > > > > PHP7 and how powerful they may be : > > > > https://gist.github.com/dstogov/dbf2a8f46e43719bd2c2 > > > > > > Why didn't you pick the same syntax as hack? > > > > It's not smart enough to be used for DbC, AOT and many other features (we > > are going to capture AST). > > I realize that, but: > > <optimization_level(2)> > > could easily look like: > > <<optimization_level(2)>> > > The latter syntax <<…>> is what Hack does, but you picked <…> - which > makes it both the same as HTML/XML tags *and* different from Hack. The > <…> syntax also gets in the way of XHP > (https://github.com/facebookarchive/xhp-php5-extension) > > cheers, > Derick I don't care about decorators. If we come to vote I may add a separate question about <> vs <<>> Thanks. Dmitry.
