Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50252 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 12828 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2010 14:04:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Nov 2010 14:04:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lars.schultz@toolpark.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lars.schultz@toolpark.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain toolpark.com from 195.49.42.12 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lars.schultz@toolpark.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 195.49.42.12 mail1.screenlight.ch Received: from [195.49.42.12] ([195.49.42.12:51089] helo=mail1.screenlight.ch) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 58/36-64124-25F82EC4 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:04:11 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.112] ([192.168.1.112]) (authenticated user lars.schultz@toolpark.com) by mail1.screenlight.ch (Kerio Connect 7.0.2 patch 1) (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher AES256-SHA (256 bits)) for internals@lists.php.net; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:03:54 +0100 Message-ID: <4CE28F49.9000700@toolpark.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:03:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion From: lars.schultz@toolpark.com (Lars Schultz) Hi, I certainly don't have PHP-Karma (Does meritocracy really refer to that?), but simply I can't believe that you're talking about this, again. I think Annotation-Supporters have made their point, but shouldn't they let the PHP 5.4 Developers get on with it and let them roll out a new version instead of forcing them to reply to lengthy emails about the same topic over and over again. One could almost believe that you're hoping to drown their voices by frustrating them into not replying anymore, therefore winning your vote. cheers. Lars