Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50299 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98986 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2010 11:56:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Nov 2010 11:56:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tyra3l@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tyra3l@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.83.42 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.83.42 mail-gw0-f42.google.com Received: from [74.125.83.42] ([74.125.83.42:36794] helo=mail-gw0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8C/28-40885-DD2C3EC4 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 06:56:18 -0500 Received: by gwb10 with SMTP id 10so1094569gwb.29 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 03:56:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Kf7IPXi2z0Jz51hjUGZpNnjZys8dSxlfInmU9UJIzXo=; b=Kz/7Ef2RdY1kkGOZxAwMvT/u9jUTHTH+YfxXVqVKBLdkcEZF2LIpNGB+RFIyqu1rQO bSmuFAfmY04v+ysC6E4MHxBJutqhEcrmHD2JxvFMkWb+00VzGGDtsDZ3jLVlD31rNjiW ggo2LzB4WeS5hiLX9S6FxWMWW/nUzODJgCxLw= 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=oXKLsHghXF/ofeg96egsx/241TphAlBD+L6jzrfWwxVebXmGxirIZq0WP24Wb1cx2l CxFW/GMasLeaNIjV/Ya+xPrbVbxPLhIfVjkCaGKRrNPiv3ho6TdbqSKHdtAEIduXYkJB nOV+azdGHCLHTAV0uuDvNUIIFrbibpYGd2C+A= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.3.31 with SMTP id 31mr11384564agc.141.1289994965388; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 03:56:05 -0800 (PST) Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com Received: by 10.90.53.4 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 03:56:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A2C59B588@il-ex2.zend.net> <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A2C59B6A0@il-ex2.zend.net> <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A2C59D788@il-ex2.zend.net> <4CE335CE.90904@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:56:05 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HoNyhVgqusTv1cugDTwYjLgM0Dk Message-ID: To: Arvids Godjuks Cc: internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636310843ac900604953e5bd6 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion From: info@tyrael.hu (Ferenc Kovacs) --001636310843ac900604953e5bd6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Arvids Godjuks > 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? > > On the other hand: it seems that more examples about the usage wouldn't hurt in the RFC... Tyrael --001636310843ac900604953e5bd6--