Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49640 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59895 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2010 20:02:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Sep 2010 20:02:39 -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 67.192.241.153 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.153 smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.153] ([67.192.241.153:40127] helo=smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 51/3D-24501-E538E8C4 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:02:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 930E95847C; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:02:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp5.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 3FAB0584E0; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C8E835A.3030904@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:02:34 -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: Gustavo Lopes CC: "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> <7.0.1.0.2.20100913145703.0d226d90@zend.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100913172559.0d2277d0@zend.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100913183427.0d2277d0@zend.com> <4C8E6B6F.4080308@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP Annotations RFC + Patch From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > The best (in the sense of "most similar to what we have today") syntax I > can think of is to define annotations exactly the same way was you'd > define arrays, but replace "array" with the annotation name (plus a > prefix). I think this looks like PHP: We have here at least two non-PHP constructs - %Name meaning "new Name" and array syntax for parameters. > could add a validate() method to ReflectionAnnotation (with an empty > default implementation) that subclasses could override to provide their > validation logic. When this validation logic will be called? On getAnnotation()? Then it would be extremely wasteful - the annotation never changes but each time is re-validated anew. > Fair enough, though I find surprising that "parent" forwards. But you'll > find that most users don't see LSB as a "scope that is forwarded" but > instead as some kind of inheritance mechanism. It also exposed the odd I don't know how you found out what "most users" of PHP's multi-million user base think - how many millions of people did you ask? - but whoever has wrong preconceptions about how it works should correct them by reading the actual docs. Provided that the actual rule can easily fit on a bumper sticker, I don't think it's too complex. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227