Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64797
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADajX4BdqodBwbs7YmN8dFOP_g+mXrN80uJD=xFVF_q4H-4WgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nEWD7SYjjN_kia9rSknjL2BKi157G1r5VJPfTkHB4Y5ww@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaKmRn1w2k9O24j29SUFxO5KuWf6UWE1aZZ_urZyiroi_NfxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nHafth_86-t+z1d=m6=8Pspewniz+pdYFBEjyjhrWt-FQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADajX4Bib0Zk7v+pHw4ntUhHTmKbrrbmGehbJuogujyOZ=Ce9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABo032FEnizYOB4qTHdytsJpadR2o1hcHwvfvBLnd0aLoskLVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADajX4BdqodBwbs7YmN8dFOP_g+mXrN80uJD=xFVF_q4H-4WgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 18:52:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CABo032Ed2b5AU_Ytj5y9xW5=STYR_0Lg6TL5r+thAYBm2ryuxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0ef28a5a64704d2e6431b
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Was Reflection annotations reader - We Need A Vision
From: sommertm@gmail.com (Tyler Sommer)

--047d7bf0ef28a5a64704d2e6431b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Great points, Adam. I disagree with this one feature being excluded but I
do agree that just because something is in the userland doesn't necessarily
mean it should be in the core-- making my point rather moot.


Cheers.

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net> wrote:

> On 10 January 2013 10:05, Tyler Sommer <sommertm@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Annotations are already a part of PHP. They are widely used in one of t=
he
> > most prolific frameworks, Symfony, and it's ORM "counterpart" Doctrine.
>
> To explain what I meant by "PHP", since I think we're arguing
> semantics there: I mean php-src specifically, rather than the broader
> userland community, since we're on Internals.
>
> > To say "they shouldn't be part of PHP" is fine, but it's too late for
> that.
> > Annotations are already here. Are we going to just ignore this fact and
> hold
> > back what a very significant portion of the community wants to see
> because
> > it conflicts with some ambiguous master plan for PHP?
>
> I don't have a master plan (that would be the part of this thread I'm
> not touching), but if it's a poorly thought out feature, sure. Pretty
> much every major project out there uses a unit testing framework and
> ORM: does that mean we should also be including equivalents for
> PHPUnit and Doctrine in core?
>
> Basically, I think the trend towards configuration as behaviour is an
> antipattern that results in less readable, harder to debug code.
> Having said that, the beauty of our userland being a set of
> communities is that each community can make their own decisions =97
> since the good folks behind Doctrine have written an excellent
> annotation parser, those who want to go that way can, but it doesn't
> mean PHP has to go out of its way to encourage it.
>
> Or, to put it another way, not everything has to be a language
> feature. That way lies Perl.
>
> Adam
>

--047d7bf0ef28a5a64704d2e6431b--