Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52199 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 96830 invoked from network); 10 May 2011 07:01:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 May 2011 07:01:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=chadfulton@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=chadfulton@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.170 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: chadfulton@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.160.170 mail-gy0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.160.170] ([209.85.160.170:40221] helo=mail-gy0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 61/B0-26231-1E2E8CD4 for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 03:01:54 -0400 Received: by gyb11 with SMTP id 11so2510203gyb.29 for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 00:01:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=OVlC6Zu78rNrgj4nvF3sk7cXDtteoRtI8HzIBsNNnnI=; b=g6edVYSdzIqTRVlKmi1K1uno0VQECBJYiWWhvgZQOiQgAYA1AhFraN7+wPknt/93rC d+M7fIhG7frmJZOZQ5kcYg29LiPZ8WOp1Am+ldsxDTxhz4z7NLli8ocV6apZE1Bi5gmV bGj284NMnb6t5Qp2a6dA+QrPAtsBI9qBLpCak= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=b8sosR5Fzy5J/Nbyl9yla16Q1qtj6QFPTCwWaM0L0jrHLLQwFi+ce+RhztLllsGmgJ prXMZF7HEhbp7+lsG3hRrtfr/RDAr0x6AUMnS0QkPBaj808nJlDs2zc5GF9AEx2qiVv3 eNXtkX/PEMufyKbbOjN5pMw9VsTqPYswMSx84= Received: by 10.90.37.38 with SMTP id k38mr6332031agk.59.1305010910218; Tue, 10 May 2011 00:01:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.51.20 with HTTP; Tue, 10 May 2011 00:01:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DC8D122.3050507@lsces.co.uk> References: <4DC826B1.4090806@lerdorf.com> <4DC82A36.8090604@lerdorf.com> <4DC83401.2090202@sugarcrm.com> <4DC8D122.3050507@lsces.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 00:01:30 -0700 Message-ID: To: Lester Caine Cc: PHP Internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again From: chadfulton@gmail.com (Chad Fulton) On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > *IS* it clear by now that the majority of users want this? For what it's worth, I still oppose Annotations. > And the argument > that 'You don't have to use it' does not wash either since once it has been > pushed in, some of the libraries we are using are going to start requiring > it simply because those developers do like the idea, but it does not > necessarily mean that THE CURRENT PROPOSAL is the right way of doing it? I especially oppose the complexity of the current proposal. One of the reasons I prefer PHPDoc to the proposed Annotations is because they're a simple key=>value syntax. I'm already doing my coding in PHP - why do I have to code in a new sub-language when all I want is a litte bit of meta-data? My main question is: Why do we need more than key=>value? When you say that "everyone" supports annotations (if that is true), are you sure they actually want more than key=>value? Discussion of this does not seem to appear in your "Why do we need Class Metadata?" section.