On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Fleshgrinder <p...@fleshgrinder.com> wrote:
> The invariant could also be added as an additional branch to the class
> instead of a method, since it would not work like a method.
>
> class A {} invariant {}
>
> function f() {} require {} ensure {}
>
> This would also align nicely with closures and anonymous classes, which
> is kind a problematic with annotations.
>
You are way off topic with this imho.
>
> $A = new class {} invariant {};
>
> $f = function () {} require {} ensure {};
>
> The only thing that remains that might be of interest to both is
> `@throws` but that was not discussed at all as of yet.
>
> use Ns\SomeException;
>
> @throws SomeException
> function f() {
>
> }
>
> This is at least how one would expect it to work and it is something
> that should be covered by annotations and not as part of the language.
> The ABNF should account for that:
>
> ANNOTATION = "@" NAME [ " " VALUE ]
> NAME = STRING
> VALUE = QUOTED-STRING / PHP-REFERENCE / EXPRESSION
> QUOTED-STRING = ( "'" / DQUOTE ) STRING ( "'" / DQUOTE )
> EXPRESSION = PHP-CODE ";"
> Where PHP references are any of the already possible ones:
>
> use F\Q\C\N;
>
> @annotation \F\Q\C\N
> @annotation N
> @annotation \F\Q\C\N::CONSTANT
> @annotation N::CONSTANT
> @annotation \F\Q\C\N::function()
> @annotation N::function()
> @annotation \F\Q\C\N::$variable
> @annotation N::$variable
>
> I also though some more about function support for annotations and this
> would actually be a nice thing for userland.
>
> annotation deprecated(Reflection $element, string $message = '') {
> @trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);
> }
>
> @deprecated('because')
> function x() {}
>
> @deprecated
> function y() {}
>
Attributes as proposed by Dimitry are not executing functions, they are
only metadata
that can be retrieved through reflection API. I think a python style
decorator approach
that you propose here, executing functions is not what the different
pro-annotations,
pro-attributes or pro-DesignByContract fractions want/need.
You are proposing something along the lines of AOP, which is an entirely
different beast
in my opinion.
> This would allow users to implement simple and easy reactive annotations
> in userland. Even if this could or should be an extension of the feature
> in the future, it should be thought about know. Simply because the
> brackets make sense if such a feature is to be implemented. ;)
>
> --
> Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
>
>
