Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50298
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.83.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        b=U+WrWCm5J7+G1NJ3peF7d9uPFOmsAL46R5DyeLvQaFz2IwrWraAGwJrBsqBGUn9C80
         uB6x5Cz779/v80yntFp/tnE3lpRyiMmrjDTjCtMD9Np1hPOxDfNJXAxEIg6DgXn6F61U
         O5hHQa9dANFjI/UGaLY5FFwI6n7ea089lCDsY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinwCiEf4-tUTX+EOctM7_4Rqkf-T6XK+mvh_QMW@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik703Bky+ZtjdzBMY8tr97m34jDSSMyoB9opJKR@mail.gmail.com>
	<887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A2C59B588@il-ex2.zend.net>
	<AANLkTin9BQj4VhwBBBOYkhDV8uFrmgPvMTZ3L8LgdSBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A2C59B6A0@il-ex2.zend.net>
	<AANLkTikOsWcA5X_M2KuM-4L2YtTY-Y6VqV3X_b4zNeFM@mail.gmail.com>
	<887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A2C59D788@il-ex2.zend.net>
	<op.vl9qo0kpidpuyk@cataphract-old>
	<4CE335CE.90904@sugarcrm.com>
	<AANLkTi=-4-y5203hA-pK9Wt6jXKAm3tPqPU9gyA38J4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinwCiEf4-tUTX+EOctM7_4Rqkf-T6XK+mvh_QMW@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:54:07 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=XFe8BibuRAxQdPi4rraEojNUQVXfyzoZpkX+z@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godjuks@gmail.com>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163631086da5a9a604953e54d2
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion
From: info@tyrael.hu (Ferenc Kovacs)

--00163631086da5a9a604953e54d2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Arvids Godjuks
<arvids.godjuks@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello Internals!
>
> For me, as a user-land developer, this issue seems as if some people
> are trying to push the annotations at any cost. What they fail to see,
> is that annotations are never described what they are and how they can
> be useful in our developer work. Right now I, and I think many other
> user-land developers, just fail to see what the annotations are
> without any meaningful example.
>
> Right now I stand for ditching the annotations and schedule to return
> to them later, after 5.4 or whatever it will be.
> Right now there are more pressing things to deal with in PHP:
> * PDO is stuck in its development and mysqli & co are quite better
> developed.
> * tainted variables are a huge bonus but somehow they are stuck in the
> draft mode too (http://wiki.php.net/rfc/taint - hell, I wait for this
> getting into the PHP for a loooooooooooong time and there are patches)
> * Traits are mostly discussed and probably need finishing touches.
> And these have a clear and understood benefit of being worked upon.
> Annotations now are just a big WTF. The fact that only a handful of
> developers reply to this thread (remember the type hinting thread -
> there where tons of reply's from many people) just shows that we as a
> com unity are not ready for annotations. Most of us just don't know
> that this is and how it's supposed to be used,
>
> Really, there is a ton of work to finish what is already has been
> started and needs attention. Type hints had the same story as
> annotations now. No easy agreement - ditched the discussion till next
> major version.
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
I agree with you; there are more important issues than some "syntactic
sugar", for example Large File Support, unicode support, pdo, pecl4win,
optimizating the error handling (generating full backtrace and such for
every error, which are just gets discarded/ignored, etc.), upload progress
(I think APC provides this.), to name just a few from the top of my head.
the only problem is, that they either hard, or boring to implement, or there
isn't any agreement on them.

my point is with this is that maybe there are more important features for
you, or for me, but if nobody can/want working on those issues, why should
we reject an improvement, which has actiove supporters? (they did write an
RFC and patch, and they brought the issue to the list, so everybody can tell
their opinion/concerns, and help to chose the best possible solution).

So as long as the above mentioned problems are unsolved, we could reject
every other improvement/addition, because there are more important, or older
problems to solve.
But I wont go to that direction, would you?

Tyrael

--00163631086da5a9a604953e54d2--