Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93348 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74304 invoked from network); 16 May 2016 01:49:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 May 2016 01:49:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=larry@garfieldtech.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=larry@garfieldtech.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain garfieldtech.com from 66.111.4.29 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: larry@garfieldtech.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 66.111.4.29 out5-smtp.messagingengine.com Received: from [66.111.4.29] ([66.111.4.29:42247] helo=out5-smtp.messagingengine.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5D/21-65275-41729375 for ; Sun, 15 May 2016 21:49:08 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D49209F0 for ; Sun, 15 May 2016 21:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 15 May 2016 21:49:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=EV6s/N9ulqLn0sZ btkd3zBDw680=; b=ozKCAxblcFGSBGejOsJyr1Oy0RJjX8bKqO857yxAfJ8ND5q 59V7sCYgLD0cdDn1byrA14nKTCGNBOZvmJUfI+NlVxTlVvTqisBXRnDTkOV0bslA UwvDA6Nwml5QicTFZfgaehsBO+9DHT4PpWrbSQZtTjLU/0ZqSE/eyCiTkwtc= X-Sasl-enc: ilNMsQUld2e0CF2FyhGxEFuWdXzpTr4U73/AMudJqFmm 1463363345 Received: from [192.168.42.5] (c-50-178-40-84.hsd1.il.comcast.net [50.178.40.84]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E28806801D6 for ; Sun, 15 May 2016 21:49:05 -0400 (EDT) To: internals@lists.php.net References: Message-ID: <57392711.5030409@garfieldtech.com> Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 20:49:05 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP Attributes From: larry@garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield) On 05/10/2016 03:48 PM, Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > >> Hi internals, >> >> >> I've started voting on "PHP Attributes" RFC. >> >> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attributes >> >> >> In my opinion, "PHP Attributes" might be a smart tool for PHP extension, >> but it's not going to be the end of the world, if we decided to live with >> doc-comments only. >> > one question, Rasmus Schultz post goes into the similar direction. > > Any reason why the annotations are only a numeric list and not key value > pairs? Key-Value would be much more powerful and address a ton of > objections for us (Doctrine). > > In the current state it is pretty limited for more complex use-cases. I > don't want to fully embrace the complexities that Larry showed for Drupal > (in my opinion, too much annotations), but without key value pairs we could > only use this when we nested JSON into the attribute value strings for > example, not something I want to mix. I fully agree that Drupal's annotation use goes over-board at present. :-) I used it as a real-world stress-case. However, even if we were to scale back in Drupal the current Attributes proposal is too low-level to be useful. I do not have voting karma, but I would endorse voting NO on this RFC as is. --Larry Garfield