Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49645
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id
         :to:mime-version:x-mailer;
        b=YLL8DLXlNbUUhvb/jCG1nnv81/zvWY6nTKU5OWs9KA/YHf1J68Itg2BHDZSWHlSnNz
         cPgxxc0PgFeX67ENs/epCt8OzItOKZwMDim32kQ8VAL6EBTYSHZnIoHaT9IOUl8Jwl4T
         lrknKW50nzVbKakz/EKtuJ8/snmzc4bL5PSr4=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:25:42 -0400
Message-ID: <39505F13-655A-43AF-941E-77750B7F7201@gmail.com>
To: PHP Development <internals@lists.php.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Subject: Re: Re: PHP Annotations RFC + Patch
From: nate.abele@gmail.com (Nate Abele)

> > At 17:51 13/09/2010, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:28:47 +0100, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> =
wrote:
> >>
> >>> At 16:39 13/09/2010, Pierre Joye wrote:
> >>>> You are not serioulsy suggesting to use phpdoc for runtime =
annotation
> >>>> support? Are you?
> >>>
> >>> I actually am (either that or get what you want done in some other
> >>> way).  It's a rare enough use case that I think it's a very =
reasonable
> >>> compromise.  The disadvantages of adding a whole new branch of =
syntax,
> >>> for this rare use case, far outweigh its advantages - IMHO.
> >>
> >> Rare use case? Have you seen any recent Java framework? Or Java EE =
6? Or
> >> design by contract in C#? A declarative programming style can be =
very
> >> handy.
> >
>=20
> > Framework code (as in code that actually goes into a framework, not =
code =20
> > that uses a framework) represents a tiny percentage of the PHP =
codebase =20
> > at large.  Most of it is application code.
> >
>=20
>=20
> You misunderstood me. When I say the frameworks use annotation I don't =
=20
> mean they use annotations in their own implementation (that's not =20
> particularly relevant for the reason you present).
>=20
> What I mean is that the frameworks recognize annotations the =
application =20
> code has so that the framework user can do stuff like injecting =
objects, =20
> run methods in transactions or check post-conditions in a declarative =20=

> fashion, by adding annotations.
>=20
> By the way, you ignored the rest of the e-mail.
>=20
> How do you evaluate the complexity/return of features such as =
annotations =20
> with that of e.g. LSB? Why are they not adequate for PHP, but may be =
for =20
> other languages?

I do not understand this.

I see no one other than Symfony / Doctrine people pushing for this =
annotations patch.

How can this special-purpose feature (which would add entirely new =
language semantics in the form of an embedded micro-language) even be =
open for discussion, when other, more generally-useful RFCs like =
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays were shot down on the basis =
that they were hard to read and confusing for new developers?

Sorry, but I don't see how this is even remotely close to being =
appropriate for PHP. Maybe I'm missing something. :-)

Thanks,
- Nate