Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64704 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 99239 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2013 21:37:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Jan 2013 21:37:05 -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 67.192.241.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.163 smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.163] ([67.192.241.163:51541] helo=smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 88/96-16636-0819CE05 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:37:04 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0FF79270824; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 16:37:02 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp6.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id B02442701F7; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 16:37:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <50EC917C.3070805@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:37:00 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: Pierrick Charron , "internals@lists.php.net" References: <50EBDEEE.8070605@sugarcrm.com> <50EC6569.6030202@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reflection annotations reader From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Everyone I talked to who implemented annotations in docblocks did it > as hack because there is no native support. This is not something that > belongs to docblocks. It would be nice if you could take a look at the > c# doc, there are really good concepts there. I know why they did it, and we already discussed that stuff in the last annotation discussion. What I mean here is that presenting it as if the notion of meaningful comments is completely unheard of in PHP and nobody expects it is just wrong. Maybe it was so years ago, but it is definitely not true now - de-facto meaningful comments *are* the standard now, and have a lot of use, and nobody with any experience is surprised by them. Regardless of *why* is it so, it is a fact. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227