Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49708
Return-Path: <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 93945 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2010 16:07:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 16 Sep 2010 16:07:15 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain nebm.ist.utl.pt from 193.136.128.21 cause and error)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt
X-Host-Fingerprint: 193.136.128.21 smtp1.ist.utl.pt Linux 2.6
Received: from [193.136.128.21] ([193.136.128.21:39892] helo=smtp1.ist.utl.pt)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 9C/B2-15036-1B0429C4 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:07:15 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp1.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2006A70003ED;
	Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:07:11 +0100 (WEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.4 (20090625) (Debian) at ist.utl.pt
Received: from smtp1.ist.utl.pt ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (smtp1.ist.utl.pt [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025)
	with LMTP id xGQh4Bwh72kF; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:07:10 +0100 (WEST)
Received: from mail2.ist.utl.pt (mail2.ist.utl.pt [IPv6:2001:690:2100:1::c])
	by smtp1.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED7270003E8;
	Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:07:10 +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 ABE742009EA0;
	Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:07:10 +0100 (WEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: "Guilherme Blanco" <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <AANLkTimuWDV=9AA63_9M6cQSp9riCPE214sUNdoV3tQn@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C873C0F.1010200@zend.com>
 <AANLkTimdCnW3ABq5QSnBa78H14e2LPBa=Kt2txU0sTD4@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C879613.7090709@zend.com>
 <AANLkTim-dHYyJxX2R3-PBVqqa3sv3+zKYr7zw7QvyngJ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C887D2B.2000605@zend.com> <4C8AC526.7000505@sugarcrm.com>
 <AANLkTikpCGj2zVNQmC1gUWaRSpsQD=qNrETi90wj_No7@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C8B6168.30504@mohiva.com>
 <AANLkTinuD_Aga-CbsbSq-23MTyOLPGrBEswTm=JtBY0H@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C8BC81E.8000605@sugarcrm.com>
 <AANLkTinFSqCFUE3P5XvjJPwUGZqYrQR_9VHAXAWSL=rv@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20100913145703.0d226d90@zend.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1009161454590.24012@kossu.derickrethans.nl>
 <op.vi4pwzpsidpuyk@cataphract-old.dulce.lo.geleia.net>
 <AANLkTimwXKohy_ai1+ZWsUghkwgzcL=kT8dBi25oGcrZ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:07:09 +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: <op.vi4u17c0idpuyk@cataphract-old.dulce.lo.geleia.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimwXKohy_ai1+ZWsUghkwgzcL=kT8dBi25oGcrZ@mail.gmail.com>
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 15:34:05 +0100, Guilherme Blanco  
<guilhermeblanco@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Derick,
>
> Again, we should not consider docblock mainly because I think
> adding/removing comments of your code should NEVER modify the overall
> functionality of your application.
> That said, docblock is no option. Now PLEASE let's stop arguing for
> nothing and vote?
> I'd recommend that since syntax is not ideal, we should not vote for
> the complete patch but vote for the functionality.
>
> So the question to be answered is: Should PHP support Annotations?
>
> I'm +1.
>

+1 for annotations.

The syntax is a different matter, but this should be settled first.


-- 
Gustavo Lopes