Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89415
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender)
References: <CAJGzsHriGp9PoYq++=CBQptFYZQiAsa+yxxN076BHxMQGD6HrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5654B516.4020700@gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVpe3+9=N5rkcHp2O5cdGuFnt_EQ=sSV8ucpv5w=ox-NaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJGzsHoP5mc2_demfWM3r7exN4qLThANcbcwo9SBydGpvmB1WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5655D82A.8020304@lsces.co.uk>
 <CAJGzsHr3XfxRGA8DSkLzAf-8AQvJPu1GMVE30PX=ScygMPgCPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5655E4E4.8070200@garfieldtech.com> <5655E61E.3000904@gmail.com>
 <CAJGzsHp95tp9kTB14JfUmzZ_tn-1EbD1_p9MCE59GH96AX_5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <5655E93F.90506@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:00:47 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJGzsHp95tp9kTB14JfUmzZ_tn-1EbD1_p9MCE59GH96AX_5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Native Annotation Syntax
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

Pedro Cordeiro wrote on 25/11/2015 16:53:
> Rowan, even if they are not harder, there is no reason to keep this 
> feature in docblocks.

Well, I can think of one reason: backwards compatibility. I don't mean 
with current frameworks - as you say, these are not currently 
standardised, so some will need to be adapted whatever is implemented in 
core - but with older versions of PHP.

If we invent new syntax, then any code using that feature must *require* 
the version of PHP that introduces that syntax, because previous 
versions will simply throw a syntax error. There are a few ways around 
this, such as:

- allowing the annotation to be preceded by // as Sara suggested (or 
maybe #, to make it look like a C pre-processor directive)
- using some other syntax that is currently a no-op, like ECMAScript's 
wacky "use strict"

But ultimately, these end up having the same disadvantages you're 
claiming for docblocks - they look like things you can delete, or which 
has some other purpose, but are actually vital to the operation of the 
code.#

I don't feel that strongly in favour of docblocks, but I don't think the 
reasons given against are particularly strong.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]