Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49656 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46646 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2010 06:09:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Sep 2010 06:09:58 -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 67.192.241.183 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.183 smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.183] ([67.192.241.183:53516] helo=smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 82/F2-33442-633609C4 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 02:09:58 -0400 Received: from relay18.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay18.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 502BE16F2BB7; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 02:09:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay18.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id C57E316F2B88; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 02:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C906333.4030204@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 23:09:55 -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: Pierrick Charron , Jonathan Bond-Caron , Nate Abele , PHP Development References: <39505F13-655A-43AF-941E-77750B7F7201@gmail.com> <001601cb543a$d81ebac0$885c3040$@com> <4C8FC695.2060800@sugarcrm.com> <4C8FD72B.1070108@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Re: PHP Annotations RFC + Patch From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > I think we have the main issue here, it has absolutely nothing to do > with users documentation, as phpdoc does. Yes, they both somehow > 'document' something but still totally unrelated for the goals and > usages. To understand that would help to move forward. Phpdocs aren't "user documentation" only, not for a long time (I mean the concept, not the particular application called phpDocumentor, of course). They are being used as metadata in many places. You could argue that's misguided but you can't ignore the fact that's what people do. The "goals and usages" of those tags are exactly metadata - and regardless of the annotations, I'd be happy if Reflection recognized it finally (by integrating some kind of phpdoc tag parser). In general, I don't see why metadata written as /** @data */ is that much worse than metadata written as [data()]. Can you explain? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227