Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52294 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 4653 invoked from network); 11 May 2011 12:53:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 May 2011 12:53:01 -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 209.85.215.42 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: 209.85.215.42 mail-ew0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.215.42] ([209.85.215.42:37735] helo=mail-ew0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D3/F9-45512-BA68ACD4 for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 08:52:59 -0400 Received: by ewy2 with SMTP id 2so140762ewy.29 for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=MEA1m+15Rsv1eUAMVwzwOZkxWZfVvHkMX5OUhqEb1Fc=; b=YDOrB7u7fMaPFfuGt/MIShg4G/rGVOQkDQO1M6sXolGxQX1tZ1yvevDQRUWX9e6Nc8 4xhJuf7822piT3BjFIIfCG//N3RShxde39aUocECC3C0SEnNraVpmgGXz2uAL66M5pEZ uVzuPKHhEi/4pCelnOtnX1joXanAOazONkpcU= 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=dj7jeGY0nm21GHx/g9Rv4+F2JFTpaqGpYhBWlHOlH/yw1Tj9EeQWHwSrJm6LQuoB14 L8UVSb+q0dXFeHs/EqVhti89l7k4FEWwE/BNOAeS2n2y0N5uwgmeMZSBhVaT25/cNtDa hfiQJjGjqsCoHT8Ita2RxityQxtzxb79xnqW0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.16.102 with SMTP id g78mr3655088eeg.135.1305118376342; Wed, 11 May 2011 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com Received: by 10.14.127.7 with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2011 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DCA82B5.3080401@naenius.com> 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> <4DCA82B5.3080401@naenius.com> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:52:56 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: VMTnVvjrZ188FCQ7RE2fCLQc4a8 Message-ID: To: Mike van Riel Cc: internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e657b16a36356204a2ff8d88 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again From: info@tyrael.hu (Ferenc Kovacs) --0016e657b16a36356204a2ff8d88 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Mike van Riel wrote: > 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. > as phpDocumentor is dead and doesn't support "new" things like namespace and closures, we should take those into account also. Tyrael --0016e657b16a36356204a2ff8d88--