Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49603 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 57782 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2010 22:48:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Sep 2010 22:48:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.143 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.143 smtp143.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.143] ([67.192.241.143:47368] helo=smtp143.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 48/D6-17717-3470C8C4 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:48:36 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3776EE8170; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:48:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp4.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 14D97E814A; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:48:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C8C073F.402@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:48:31 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: Guilherme Blanco , Christian Kaps , Pierrick Charron , "internals@lists.php.net" References: <4C873C0F.1010200@zend.com> <4C879613.7090709@zend.com> <4C887D2B.2000605@zend.com> <4C8AC526.7000505@sugarcrm.com> <4C8B6168.30504@mohiva.com> <4C8BC81E.8000605@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP Annotations RFC + Patch From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > It seems that there is a misunderstanding about the goals of the > annotations. They are not meant to be read by human being > (javadoc/phpdoc/etc. are) but to be parsed automatically to be used > for services. If it's for services/phpdoc, why can't it be part of phpdoc? I see here a whole new language syntax being invented, complete with nested constructs, new instantiation syntax, new argument parsing rules and what not. All that while tiniest attempts on introducing syntax sugar were consistently rejected. But here we have sub-section of language with totally different rules - PHP has no named parameters, but annotations have them, PHP has no array/instantiation shortcut syntax, but annotations have it, etc. Please understand, I'm not objecting to a particular detail of syntax - I'm objecting to the fact that the design of the language appears to be guided by a random whim. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227