Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64847 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 79272 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2013 04:56:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Jan 2013 04:56:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=dukeofgaming@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=dukeofgaming@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.171 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: dukeofgaming@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.223.171 mail-ie0-f171.google.com Received: from [209.85.223.171] ([209.85.223.171:47300] helo=mail-ie0-f171.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BD/06-02684-26B9FE05 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:56:03 -0500 Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 17so1873473iea.30 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:56:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=yNgzRetG7l7g69Ut0NuEsvF9IC0D3L2eKfhiROMG5IY=; b=nIMVWLD/c04/RYnOT8UxzS90oCjV0Ln3dLWlnP2w0IStWeanEC2zOcQ3YGj9A70EZN 4hnJbs6Ow6FqNvhK7kvZjN5i+pJW+p+Zcm3plgThHicx7ANb34nNmq8Ftor1LIMamyed Ygjoc2KLi1j0fA4ufR/YQIY6Mymt/R+8sDlpF9YAjU9Pc22wC1bAp8QA2OINWP0EpfCV /gnnxbhTAjYO2SSNAc2upG20lXxXAY4XxOkYSqHGf9ms7kDc81HZx5eelcAciRb47DUM JNppvFGy7QwGok9E47nJejsIjfpyLN9Otnepo8zH9q/lr9wWZOvCiX4RLgiGtTQD4/Pa 7t0w== Received: by 10.50.45.166 with SMTP id o6mr7824137igm.0.1357880160137; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:56:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.46.225 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:55:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <48412E0A-3FCC-440D-8479-39B666EB7213@gmail.com> References: <50EDBEA5.1050201@sugarcrm.com> <50EE5DAF.2080901@sugarcrm.com> <50EF2195.3080907@sugarcrm.com> <50EF49AF.9050801@b1-systems.de> <48412E0A-3FCC-440D-8479-39B666EB7213@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:55:38 -0600 Message-ID: To: Yahav Gindi Bar Cc: Ralf Lang , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae934035797b1cc04d2fc1ccb Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Was Reflection annotations reader - We Need A Vision From: dukeofgaming@gmail.com (dukeofgaming) --14dae934035797b1cc04d2fc1ccb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using annotations just... refrain from using them? Annotations are currently used by the industry through workarounds to the PHP language, so any argument on it's usefulness is completely moot. Adding native support for this (no one says it is easy) is important for the advancement of the language, you already have your proof of concept out there, so there is really no discussing on whether they are a useful feature or not. Also, to maybe put things in better perspective and discourage visceral vote (because the topic will keep arising until the end of times, I'd bank on that) why not make a list of pros and cons to adding this to the language? Finally, I remember the lack of support for development has been a problem... so why not call out for support to the community?, from GSoC to PHP gurus litterate on Comp Sci and software engineering and architecture? Regards, David On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Yahav Gindi Bar wrote= : > Agree, I thought about Those who don't want to annotations at all. So we > can add 2 extra options for those who don't want annotations at all and > those who wish better proposal :) > PS : I'm with those who do wish annotations. > > =D7=91-11 =D7=91=D7=99=D7=A0=D7=95 2013, =D7=91=D7=A9=D7=A2=D7=94 01:07, = Ralf Lang =D7=9B=D7=AA=D7=91/=D7=94: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > >> > >> Just a thought - if the main argument is about syntax - we can > >> propose few versions (Without implementing them) and then vote for > >> 1) No annotations (attributes) at all. 2) Syntax #1 3) Syntax #2 > >> and so on. > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > If we come up with two bad ideas, it's not a reason to shred > > annotations altogether. ;) > > > > Alternative wording: > > > > 1) Syntax #1 > > 2) Syntax #2 > > ... > > n) Syntax #n > > n+1) None of these - do nothing until we get better proposals. > > > > - -- > > Ralf Lang > > Linux Consultant / Developer > > Tel.: +49-170-6381563 > > Mail: lang@b1-systems.de > > B1 Systems GmbH > > Osterfeldstra=C3=9Fe 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de > > GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > > > iEYEARECAAYFAlDvSa8ACgkQCs1dsHJ/X7Ct/ACgx2PD/Pk4DDnFGC8QSq75K2J/ > > 8i8An0IXRxebk3663Y1rZaoZN+Fr5m6b > > =3Dk2Bt > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > --14dae934035797b1cc04d2fc1ccb--