Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49710 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98019 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2010 16:19:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Sep 2010 16:19:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierrick@webstart.fr; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierrick@webstart.fr; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain webstart.fr from 209.85.214.42 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierrick@webstart.fr X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.42 mail-bw0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.214.42] ([209.85.214.42:43470] helo=mail-bw0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 09/93-15036-E83429C4 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:19:27 -0400 Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7so1999527bwz.29 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:19:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.35.69 with SMTP id o5mr2787871bkd.87.1284653964169; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.46.207 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:19:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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 12:19:24 -0400 Message-ID: To: Guilherme Blanco Cc: Gustavo Lopes , Derick Rethans , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325557a263195af049062cfcc Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP Annotations RFC + Patch From: pierrick@webstart.fr (Pierrick Charron) --000325557a263195af049062cfcc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 for Annotations 2010/9/16 Guilherme Blanco > 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. > > > Cheers, > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Gustavo Lopes > wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:57:01 +0100, Derick Rethans > wrote: > > > >>> There should be overwhelmingly strong reasons to add a whole new bran= ch > >>> 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 fo= r > >> class methods and class properties. Right now I think they're not bein= g > >> 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 usin= g > doc > > comments to implement annotations would be okay. > > > > As I said, doc comments as they are now are insufficient. > > > > -- > > Gustavo Lopes > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > -- > Guilherme Blanco > Mobile: +55 (16) 9215-8480 > MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com > S=E3o Paulo - SP/Brazil > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > --000325557a263195af049062cfcc--