If past experience is any indicator then you’re hardly correct regarding your first statement – being able to do something in PHP was no insurance against proposals suggesting new ways of doing the same thing – often in an improved way.
Re: the 2nd part, extending phpdoc would be way less obscure because we’d be building on existing, already defined and widely used syntax. To make it clear – I’m not suggesting we add all of the complexity of the annotations proposal on top of phpdoc, but something fairly minimal. That’s why I said developers should ‘make do’ with phpdoc (with slight improvements around storing doc blocks where we don’t store them today). Like I said – of course annotations bring value. If that was the only property when evaluating a new feature to be added, PHP would very quickly become an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink language. Thankfully, it’s not. Zeev it can't see your point. if the current phpdoc would be enough, then they wouldn't propose the annotation. if you can't do everything with phpdoc that you could do with annotation, then I can see 2 choice: - forget the advanced stuff, but in this case, don try to sound as the phpdoc would be an alternative - extend the phpdoc support to cover the missing parts: how would that less obscure? phpdoc isn't up for the task. if you did read the RFC and did your research about the annotations, then you know that. Tyrael
