Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49733 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 65008 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2010 20:51:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Sep 2010 20:51:06 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 65.19.76.48 unknown Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:51:05 -0400 Received: from [65.19.76.48] ([65.19.76.48:3048] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 64/90-15036-933829C4 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:51:05 -0400 Message-ID: <64.90.15036.933829C4@pb1.pair.com> To: internals@lists.php.net References: <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> <4C926574.8030805@sugarcrm.com> <4C926E03.1030109@sugarcrm.com> <4C92790C.4070405@sugarcrm.com> User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-16 (Linux) X-Posted-By: 65.19.76.48 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP Annotations RFC + Patch From: weierophinney@php.net (Matthew Weier O'Phinney) On 2010-09-16, Guilherme Blanco wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > > > Again, you change the meanings of something I write. > > > I do not want Java Annotations on PHP. But I want a clean way to > > > include metadata mapping on my class/property/method/function. > > > > Everybody wants a clean way to include metadata. It's *what* this way is > > where the difference is. So is the vote about having any metadata retrieval > > mechanism? Specific proposal exactly as proposed? Some generalization of the > > proposal without specifying some details? > > The RFC contains all details of proposal. > If the syntax is not ok, then let's discuss the implementation once it > gets accepts or forget about it if not. But overall functionality is > described there. I think the functionality of annotations needs to be proposed separately from the syntax of annotations. Right now, the RFC is tying the two together -- I think it's much more likely that you'll get buy-in for annotations if we can focus on their purpose within the language first. From there, work on determining whether it requires language level enhancements, and what those may be -- the syntax and functionality as expressed in the patch, or another possibility entirely. I know _I_, for one, am not comfortable voting on the current RFC due to questions on the approach -- though I _am_ generally in favor of the idea of annotations. (I'm still not entirely convinced that the same goals could not be achieved via code written on top of a docblock parser extension.) -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Project Lead | matthew@zend.com Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/ PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc