Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52293 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 99909 invoked from network); 11 May 2011 12:36:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 May 2011 12:36:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mike.vanriel@naenius.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mike.vanriel@naenius.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain naenius.com designates 83.96.159.14 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mike.vanriel@naenius.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 83.96.159.14 linux35.webawere.nl Linux 2.6 Received: from [83.96.159.14] ([83.96.159.14:46608] helo=linux35.webawere.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 32/19-45512-9B28ACD4 for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 08:36:09 -0400 Received: from 546b6bd8.cm-12-4b.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([84.107.107.216] helo=[192.168.1.109]) by linux35.webawere.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QK8e5-0006fV-FQ for internals@lists.php.net; Wed, 11 May 2011 14:36:05 +0200 Message-ID: <4DCA82B5.3080401@naenius.com> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:36:05 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <4DC826B1.4090806@lerdorf.com> <4DC82A36.8090604@lerdorf.com> <4DC83401.2090202@sugarcrm.com> <4DC8D122.3050507@lsces.co.uk> <4DC8F125.2010503@toolpark.com> <4DC8FB1A.7040206@lerdorf.com> <4DC98100.6080806@oracle.com> <4DC9827B.6080409@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus-Scanner: Seems clean. You should still use an Antivirus Scanner Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again From: mike.vanriel@naenius.com (Mike van Riel) On 05/10/2011 10:03 PM, Chad Fulton wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:35 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus. >> I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we >> can chat until reach some standardization and availability. >> >> I'll keep the old one for history purposes. It seems that none from >> core php devs accepted it, so I'll move it to rejected. >> As I told you previously, all I wanted was some good feedback to give >> a north and that's what I had. >> >> As soon as I finish the new RFC, I'll open another thread here for >> fine-grain the support and discuss architecture. >> I'll keep Stas comments in mind when creating it, so it would help in >> discussions. It seems we still have 2 weeks to discuss the new idea >> and less than 2 months to get it ready if everyone agreed. > Please first take a look at the current RFC regarding parsing > docblocks: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/docblockparser . Even if you want > to put up a competing RFC, at least you can use it as a point of > reference. > > Chad Additionally I would recommend reading the JavaDoc and phpDocumentor rules concerning DocBlocks. As far as I can see the RFC mentioned above is incomplete with respect to the current syntax guidelines for DocBlocks as mentioned in the documents above; which is used for quite a bit of projects out there. I'll keep my eyes open for the new RFC to see if I can contribute some of my experiences to the efforts. I hope that my experiences building the Static Reflection for DocBlocks in DocBlox can prove useful. -- Mike van Riel