Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49648 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 63791 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2010 18:49:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Sep 2010 18:49:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tyra3l@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tyra3l@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.170 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.160.170 mail-gy0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.160.170] ([209.85.160.170:61906] helo=mail-gy0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5C/95-33442-DB3CF8C4 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:49:33 -0400 Received: by gyd10 with SMTP id 10so2894736gyd.29 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:49:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bXqmnjYHNczqR84nMCey8Daa+hCba1Qu2BarxQUx84Q=; b=hkLm4N1FfOp/t3ptYq3pguSDZr+sSqaynn+tIy5aOv27whhgTlVjOZWC3vi3DATIZA CYnk/mswDh33b5hiIN5Jyoi3GwBv0a7ocJc9jtrBBwNxU5vOb8n69TJAf682q7wWDyMg SduY5Qzti+xr0V79h6dfwpV1X/KruLsgeTmDo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=luZARqpKB8FQn2qGdfbAYTBoj4lfrN+rh47UqdwsNGzpbTJcgScpfBFXVTINm4ThLq xeBbiJcx2sL59Wd3zjzx95bp9IAz3CJBOLxRl9bn3Jui/dujJy4G315+PItXAY5ToOjY 6c+zc1RDCwCCJXdBdguOzdTlNIdE87mD1xAw4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.148.2 with SMTP id v2mr651377ybd.184.1284490170753; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.153.1 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:49:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <39505F13-655A-43AF-941E-77750B7F7201@gmail.com> References: <39505F13-655A-43AF-941E-77750B7F7201@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:49:30 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Y-AM-HjpbyecMYjyoqeGRe135XI Message-ID: To: Nate Abele Cc: PHP Development Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd51a525864dd04903cac87 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Re: PHP Annotations RFC + Patch From: info@tyrael.hu (Ferenc Kovacs) --000e0cd51a525864dd04903cac87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Nate Abele wrote: > > > At 17:51 13/09/2010, Gustavo Lopes wrote: > > >> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:28:47 +0100, Zeev Suraski > 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. > > > > > > > > Framework code (as in code that actually goes into a framework, not > code > > > that uses a framework) represents a tiny percentage of the PHP codebase > > > at large. Most of it is application code. > > > > > > > > > You misunderstood me. When I say the frameworks use annotation I don't > > mean they use annotations in their own implementation (that's not > > particularly relevant for the reason you present). > > > > What I mean is that the frameworks recognize annotations the application > > code has so that the framework user can do stuff like injecting objects, > > run methods in transactions or check post-conditions in a declarative > > fashion, by adding annotations. > > > > By the way, you ignored the rest of the e-mail. > > > > How do you evaluate the complexity/return of features such as annotations > > with that of e.g. LSB? Why are they not adequate for PHP, but may be for > > 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 > > It's the same as Zeev said: "The fact we have complex components in PHP is no excuse to add more complexity to the language. It's not a binary state, with PHP "already being complex", so we can add as much complexity as we want. Complexity accumulates." The fact that we rejecteded better features in PHP is no excuse to reject good ideas from the... at least without a discussion which is just happening. Tyrael --000e0cd51a525864dd04903cac87--