Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50263 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 1759 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2010 17:52:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Nov 2010 17:52:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=guilhermeblanco@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=guilhermeblanco@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.42 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.160.42 mail-pw0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.160.42] ([209.85.160.42:63611] helo=mail-pw0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 32/C1-25421-2C4C2EC4 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:52:03 -0500 Received: by pwj5 with SMTP id 5so281879pwj.29 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:51:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xKEmEpxILLaEr3FHWKrYOzqeKBBnsr9ZTnHvy5+utC8=; b=fyXXYN9VlkMfQA3OQ4y9syY4ED3yHgS9uUbxysIqsIE8socKYqZ4q5EH/Q+rRlDJ0W ic7f6xZOYkARCZ21SVmz+cV/kFu9LXybhq2+e/GfFqiJQuTlauo7C2YUX8zmdhxNzid9 wOuJ/yH9wcz9ONWUkxVArBJa1GOb3CQBJQdU4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=TqNaeTcVb4Bol0Trwoz6VcELe1RYtX31gjS+kcGGqcm4q8Dwoi5HLoegzy83M55GZk m40Vg3hQBjD4IRAGm/lg1NITCZ2kZ3r/fFBAXVtmYK8CvE/FWm0V6qptZvDN6dVw1LuB oEGH6zN0Bl4u/pfclVL281MFmdrg9BSvlOT/s= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.79.4 with SMTP id n4mr6352317fak.69.1289929918548; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:51:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.105.5 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:51:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4CE28F49.9000700@toolpark.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:51:58 -0200 Message-ID: To: Chad Fulton Cc: Lars Schultz , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion From: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com ("guilhermeblanco@gmail.com") I don't wanna be bad interpreted or considered as rude, but I wonder why is it so hard for all of you to just vote instead of stay crying like lost babies. PHP is open for everyone to contribute, I want to help it but it seems impossible to help language move forward without people that accept global decisions. Cheers, On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:47 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com wrote: > @Chad: You're getting me wrong here. > > If results of poll decide for OK to meta attribute support, next poll > would be which implementation to choose. > I can find 3 different implementations that we can choose, but anyone > is free to contribute. > > - Docblock > > /** @Foo */ > class User { ... } > > - New syntax similar to first patch > > [Foo] > class User { ... } > > - A keyword scope similar to method/namespace declaration > > annotate { return new Foo(); } > class User { ... } > > But before even spend time talking over and over about implementation, > I wanna ask if we should invest time into it, since I got a lot of > flaming responses (and I still continue, even though people barely see > what I'm asking). > > If you say that we should enhance docblock to allow retrieve of @foo, > you're automatically saying +1 to this thread. > I do not want to enter in discussion about implementation because I > don't even know if it will be accepted. I don't want to spend a lot of > time to produce a patch to something that will not be accepted. So > let's decide IF and possibly WHAT to implement, then I can work on it. > > All I want is a democratic decision, and not something that one guy > answer as "NO" and end of story. > If majority says "YES", one person being against it doesn't sound to > me like a democracy/meritocracy. > > > Cheers, > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Chad Fulton wrote= : >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Lars Schultz wrote: >>> 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 versi= on >>> 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 th= eir >>> voices by frustrating them into not replying anymore, therefore winning= your >>> vote. >>> >>> cheers. >>> Lars >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>> >>> >> >> ^ I agree. >> >> ---- >> >> I also don't think you can discuss annotations without simultaneously >> discussing their implementation. To me, it looks like you're trying to >> force through a vote on a very vague topic "should PHP support >> Annotations", and then use that vote later to force through an >> implementation that many core people have already said is not >> desirable. >> >> Many of the arguments that are central to the question of "should PHP >> support Annotations" MUST deal with their implementation because they >> add a large new set of syntax to the language. >> >> I doubt anyone would support annotations "at any cost", and yet that's >> the vote you're trying to force here. >> >> -- >> 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=C3=A3o Paulo - SP/Brazil > --=20 Guilherme Blanco Mobile: +55 (16) 9215-8480 MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com S=C3=A3o Paulo - SP/Brazil