I'm having a crack at it now. Seeing if I can use it to plug a new
Annotation driver for Doctrine.
Couple of things I've found so far are:
<<Entity>> with empty args doesn't work.
<<ORM\Entity>> namespace doesn't work.
On the subject of using @, that could denote a class constructor, unless
someone already mentioned that.
On 22 Apr 2016 12:44 a.m., "Dmitry Stogov" <dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
On 04/22/2016 02:16 AM, Dominic Grostate wrote:
This is amazing. It would actually allow us to implement our automated
assertions ourselves, as opposed to requiring it within the language.
this was the idea - to give a good tool instead of implementing every
possible use-case in the language.
Could it also support references?
<<sanitize(&$a)>>
function foo($a) {
}
yes. "&$a" is a valid PHP expression.
If you plan to use this, I would appreciate, if you to build the patched
PHP and try it.
The early we find problems the better feature we will get at the end.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On 21 Apr 2016 10:13 p.m., "Dmitry Stogov" <dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I would like to present an RFC proposing support for native annotation.
>
> The naming, syntax and behavior are mostly influenced by HHVM Hack, but
> not exactly the same.
>
> The most interesting difference is an ability to use arbitrary PHP
> expressions as attribute values.
>
> These expressions are not evaluated, but stored as Abstract Syntax Trees,
> and later may be accessed (node by node) in PHP extensions, preprocessors
> and PHP scripts their selves. I think this ability may be useful for
> "Design By Contract", other formal verification systems, Aspect Oriented
> Programming, etc
>
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attributes
>
>
> Note that this approach is going to be native, in contrast to doc-comment
> approach that uses not well defined syntax, and even not parsed by PHP
> itself.
>
>
> Additional ideas, endorsement and criticism are welcome.
>
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
