On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Alexander Lisachenko
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 2015-02-10 15:20 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Stogov <[email protected]>:
>
>> I thought about this way, and you are welcome to start composing another
>> RFC. it makes sense and has its advantages.
>> Unfortunately, it relays on many unavailable features that has to be
>> designed as well (annotations, AST manipulation, opcode manipulation), but
>> may be this is a right road.
>>
>
>
> Thanks, Dmitry! Your position is clearly highlight my vision, it's not so
> easy, but maybe it will bring us much more profit at the end.
>
>
> 2015-02-10 15:20 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Stogov <[email protected]>:
>
>> D and Effiel approach may work as well, but if you like another
>> (annotation based) approach - be involved into development.
>> At first we'll need 3-rd RFC that defines all the things that must be
>> implemented.
>> I may help, with RFC, design and implementation.
>>
>
> Thanks, your help is really appreciated ) I'l try to start another one RFC
> about this API, let's have a look what can be done.
Hello,
maybe you could try to consult your ideas with Ivan Enderlin. He
mentioned in previous emails (for instance
http://news.php.net/php.internals/82245) that
he would prefer some
AOP/hook-based approach to DbC as well, so it may be compatible with
your mindset.
Regards
Pavel Kouril