Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52176 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98474 invoked from network); 9 May 2011 18:36:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 May 2011 18:36:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.203 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.203 smtp203.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.203] ([67.192.241.203:59552] helo=smtp203.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 61/70-20726-42438CD4 for ; Mon, 09 May 2011 14:36:21 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp10.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 99AF21B825B; Mon, 9 May 2011 14:36:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp10.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 644A21B84A2; Mon, 9 May 2011 14:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DC83401.2090202@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 11:35:45 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" CC: PHP Internals References: <4DC826B1.4090806@lerdorf.com> <4DC82A36.8090604@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > If possible, could you look at the patch and give me high level ideas > of what could be changed? If the patch is the same RFC that is at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations, the same problems that were voiced a number of times on the list stay: - it is overly complex (see class User example - it's really a piece of code, I think it should be in the code) - it introduces method call syntax not compatible with the rest of PHP - it introduces object instantiation syntax not compatible with the rest of PHP These issues were mentioned before - were they fixed? The RFC also does not clarify where the code contained in annotations is run and how it would play with bytecode caches. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227