Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49703 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 51553 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2010 14:16:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Sep 2010 14:16:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain nebm.ist.utl.pt from 193.136.128.22 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt X-Host-Fingerprint: 193.136.128.22 smtp2.ist.utl.pt Linux 2.6 Received: from [193.136.128.22] ([193.136.128.22:45059] helo=smtp2.ist.utl.pt) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FC/74-29241-DA6229C4 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:16:14 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 228E17000486; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:16:09 +0100 (WEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.4 (20090625) (Debian) at ist.utl.pt Received: from smtp2.ist.utl.pt ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.ist.utl.pt [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with LMTP id Q+7zeoJJeBFw; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:16:08 +0100 (WEST) Received: from mail2.ist.utl.pt (mail2.ist.utl.pt [IPv6:2001:690:2100:1::c]) by smtp2.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C1970003D2; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:16:08 +0100 (WEST) Received: from cataphract-old.dulce.lo.geleia.net (52.152.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt [93.108.152.52]) (Authenticated sender: ist155741) by mail2.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C58422009EA2; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:16:08 +0100 (WEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: "Derick Rethans" 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> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:16:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: =?iso-8859-15?Q?N=FAcleo_de_Eng=2E_Biom=E9dica_?= =?iso-8859-15?Q?do_IST?= Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.61 (Win32) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP Annotations RFC + Patch From: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt ("Gustavo Lopes") On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:57:01 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote: >> There should be overwhelmingly strong reasons to add a whole new branch >> of syntax to PHP, I for one don't see the huge gain annotations bring >> on top of PHPDoc. > > The only thing I can think of is added the storing of docblock data for > class methods and class properties. Right now I think they're not being > stored in the oparrays? In any case, I am also not for adding more > syntax just to do annotations. > Have you read my e-mail? http://news.php.net/php.internals/49674 I don't understand whether you're against annotations per se or if using doc comments to implement annotations would be okay. As I said, doc comments as they are now are insufficient. -- Gustavo Lopes