Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 11.05.2011 23:57, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi duke, > > I moved it to rejected in pro of a new proposal. > I briefly drafted it here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations-in-docblock > > There's a lot of things to be officially defined, but basic idea is there. > I expect to have a c

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

@duke: Exactly. The idea is to expose this support through Reflection API @Marcelo: It is listed that this support would be necessary. On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:06 PM, dukeofgaming wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:57 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> Hi duke, >> >> I moved it to re

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:57 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com < guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi duke, > > I moved it to rejected in pro of a new proposal. > I briefly drafted it here: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations-in-docblock > > There's a lot of things to be officially defined, but b

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

is there any chance to add docblocks to arguments in methods and global functions so annotations can be used for them? i.e: public function aMethod(/** @Validate */ UserData $data) { ... } On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:57 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi duke, > > I moved it to rejected in

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi duke, I moved it to rejected in pro of a new proposal. I briefly drafted it here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations-in-docblock There's a lot of things to be officially defined, but basic idea is there. I expect to have a chat with interested core devs to see what can be done in this subjec

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com < guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Larz, > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Lars Schultz > wrote: > > Am 11.05.2011 00:28, schrieb guilhermebla...@gmail.com: > >> > >> - Entities with knowledge about its persistence information >

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/11/2011 11:05 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: On 05/11/2011 11:01 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: phpdox generates documentation for Zend Framework in less than two minutes using less than 50 megabytes of memory ;-) I forgot to mention that the above is for a run without an existing cache.

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/11/2011 11:01 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: phpdox generates documentation for Zend Framework in less than two minutes using less than 50 megabytes of memory ;-) I forgot to mention that the above is for a run without an existing cache. With an existing cache it is 5 seconds and 5 megab

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/11/2011 05:32 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: ZF docs were taking between 80 and 110 minutes with phpDocumentor, and consuming ~2GB of RAM. They now take around 10 minutes and consume less than 1GB of RAM. :) phpdox generates documentation for Zend Framework in less than two minutes

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/11/2011 02:52 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: as phpDocumentor is dead and doesn't support "new" things like namespace and closures, we should take those into account also. Next generation documentation tools such as phpdox [1] handle these newer language features just fine. -- [1] https://

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > My main concern is the trickle-down effect a major low-level engine > addition causes. Your patch is just the tip of the iceberg which will cause > dozens of people weeks of work to account for the new code all across the > PHP ecosyste

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi Larz, On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Lars Schultz wrote: > Am 11.05.2011 00:28, schrieb guilhermebla...@gmail.com: >> >> - Entities with knowledge about its persistence information > > That must be something I simply have no knowledge about. But isn't it just a > theoretical difference, beca

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Lester, On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Lester Caine wrote: Ferenc Kovacs wrote: sorry my FUD counter just overflowed with your last comment. Sorry you feel that way, but obviously there are more people with my view that we simply do not agree on IF ann

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/11/2011 09:21 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: The only point that I see here is that none of them heavily rely on this feature. Doctrine/Symfony relies a lot on it, and requires special treatment that key => value support is not enough. Please check out these pages for reference: Doct

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: > PDO is another case in point - that is still not accepted and fully > functional as a replacement for the genric drivers ... ADOdb still provides > a valid abstraction layer, and if you must use PDO then it just loads that > instead of the generic one ... and

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi Rasmus, On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On 05/11/2011 01:39 AM, dukeofgaming wrote: >> >> The link doesn't work, but I'm assuming it is this one?: >> https://wiki.php.net/todo > > That was supposed to be wiki.php.net/rfc (iPad auto-correct messed it up) > >> In other w

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi Lester, On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > Ferenc Kovacs wrote: >> >> sorry my FUD counter just overflowed with your last comment. > > Sorry you feel that way, but obviously there are more people with my view > that we simply do not agree on IF annotation should be implemen

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi Larz, On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Lars Schultz wrote: > Am 10.05.2011 16:53, schrieb Martin Scotta: >> >> Annotations are not required, you add them if you want to. > > Yes. sure. But I am sure that certain Annotations must be combined to > unleash their purpose, no? There is no validatio

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On May 11, 2011, at 4:00 AM, dukeofgaming wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >> On 05/11/2011 01:39 AM, dukeofgaming wrote: >> >>> The link doesn't work, but I'm assuming it is this one?: >>> https://wiki.php.net/todo >>> >> >> That was supposed to be wiki.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 2011-05-11, Lester Caine wrote: > Mike van Riel wrote: > > DocBlox (http://www.docblox-project.org) is a rising project which > > offers support for all these new things and uses less processing time > > and memory. > > It is goal is to serve as an alternative for phpDocumentor (and an > > impr

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 2011-05-11, dukeofgaming wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > > guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: > > > So, please stop saying "no" to every feature request that comes in > > > and start to discuss the actual impact of each feature. > > > > I think that MY only probl

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Mike van Riel wrote: DocBlox (http://www.docblox-project.org) is a rising project which offers support for all these new things and uses less processing time and memory. It is goal is to serve as an alternative for phpDocumentor (and an improvement, it has several features of it's own such as inc

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Mike van Riel wrote: > On 05/11/2011 03:18 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > >> Ferenc Kovacs wrote: >> >>> as phpDocumentor is dead and doesn't support "new" things like namespace >>> and >>> closures, we should take those into account also. >>> >> >> Nothing stops it fro

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/11/2011 03:18 PM, Lester Caine wrote: Ferenc Kovacs wrote: as phpDocumentor is dead and doesn't support "new" things like namespace and closures, we should take those into account also. Nothing stops it from working perfectly well on the years of code that it still supports! Finding pe

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Ferenc Kovacs wrote: as phpDocumentor is dead and doesn't support "new" things like namespace and closures, we should take those into account also. Nothing stops it from working perfectly well on the years of code that it still supports! Finding people with the time to ADD new features is the

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Mike van Riel wrote: > On 05/10/2011 10:03 PM, Chad Fulton wrote: > >> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:35 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some >>> consensus. >>> I'll write anot

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/10/2011 10:03 PM, Chad Fulton wrote: On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:35 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus. I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we can chat until reach some stand

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 11 May 2011 18:07, Christian Kaps wrote: > Why not learning from Java and implement annotations in the way > Guilherme proposed it? I think they had good reasons for the new > implementation. Maybe someone has a link which points to such discussion. I believe you are looking for something like

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Am 11.05.2011 13:31, schrieb Richard Quadling: > On 11 May 2011 07:50, dukeofgaming wrote: >> It is really troubling to read that statement. Seems there are still some >> that don't really have a clue of what annotations are, even when the RFC >> clearly links to them. Annotations ARE NOT document

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 11 May 2011 07:50, dukeofgaming wrote: > It is really troubling to read that statement. Seems there are still some > that don't really have a clue of what annotations are, even when the RFC > clearly links to them. Annotations ARE NOT documentation; in the case of > PHP, documentation is being

[PHP-DEV] Re: news.php.net (was Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again)

Johannes Schlüter wrote: I've got in the habit of killing all the extra reply addresses myself! Which is bad, as it means that I don't get a reply to the sub-thread I'm interested in (as i participated) to my inbox, but only in my internals folder, where it easily disappears in a long thread.

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On 05/11/2011 01:39 AM, dukeofgaming wrote: > >> The link doesn't work, but I'm assuming it is this one?: >> https://wiki.php.net/todo >> > > That was supposed to be wiki.php.net/rfc (iPad auto-correct messed it up) > > I see. I have actual

[PHP-DEV] news.php.net (was Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again)

On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 10:21 +0100, Lester Caine wrote: > dukeofgaming wrote: > > c) The public mirror of the newsgroup is faulty, see > > http://news.php.net/php.internals/52242 for example > > > > /command too long: XPATH <4dc826b1.4090...@lerdorf.com > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/11/2011 01:39 AM, dukeofgaming wrote: The link doesn't work, but I'm assuming it is this one?: https://wiki.php.net/todo That was supposed to be wiki.php.net/rfc (iPad auto-correct messed it up) In other words, the ideal situation to move this particular case forward is to have more sta

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

dukeofgaming wrote: c) The public mirror of the newsgroup is faulty, see http://news.php.net/php.internals/52242 for example /command too long: XPATH <4dc826b1.4090...@lerdorf.com > <4dc82a36.8090...@lerdorf.com

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 03:39 -0500, dukeofgaming wrote: > In other words, the ideal situation to move this particular case forward is > to have more stakeholders join the discussion, right?. An issue that I see > here is that it is not that easy to join in the discussion because: > > a) They would

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > The roadmap is in the form of a feature list which you can find at > wiki.php.net/etc > There is never going to be complete agreement on any feature, but once > there is enough agreement from the main stakeholders

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Am 11.05.2011 10:11, schrieb dukeofgaming: Eh, well, in a weird and complex way I'd guess =P. I am saying that using interfaces in situations where you need more than key => value annotations or state (is that correct?) are of similar complexity and already available. Also, and if I'm not mi

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Lars Schultz wrote: > Am 11.05.2011 09:35, schrieb dukeofgaming: > > Que?. Are you aware that you cannot implement interface methods?. >> > Sorry. my bad. I mixed implementation with specification, but it would > work, no? > > Eh, well, in a weird and complex way

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Lars Schultz wrote: Also citings of .NET and Java makes me wanna scream, because I don't want those languages. I want PHP, which has been my faithful servant for over 12 years! Mine not quite so long, but exactly ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.c

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Am 11.05.2011 09:35, schrieb dukeofgaming: Que?. Are you aware that you cannot implement interface methods?. Sorry. my bad. I mixed implementation with specification, but it would work, no? I really think the dilemma of whether annotations are useful or not is moot. What an argument. I'm not

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

> This is another thing that troubles me when I read this list. How does the > PHP core dev community sets priorities?, is there some sort of roadmap?, is > there a process to create this roadmap?, or is it just all a generalized > best intention to do things. > > I'm aware that the more features

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

dukeofgaming wrote: So, please stop saying "no" to every feature request that comes in and start to discuss the actual impact of each feature. I think that MY only problem with you 'adding annotations because it is missing' is simply that I've already been doing

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Am 10.05.2011 16:53, schrieb Martin Scotta: Annotations are not required, you add them if you want to. Yes. sure. But I am sure that certain Annotations must be combined to unleash their purpose, no? There is no validation for that, correct? Also they can be used not only with classes. You ca

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi, On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: > >> So, please stop saying "no" to every feature request that comes in and >> start to discuss the actual impact of each feature. >> > > I think that MY only problem with you 'adding annotations because

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Am 11.05.2011 00:28, schrieb guilhermebla...@gmail.com: - Entities with knowledge about its persistence information That must be something I simply have no knowledge about. But isn't it just a theoretical difference, because in practice, the "code" being annotations or PHP-Code is kept within t

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: So, please stop saying "no" to every feature request that comes in and start to discuss the actual impact of each feature. I think that MY only problem with you 'adding annotations because it is missing' is simply that I've already been doing it for years - jus

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 20:21 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > creating an official EBNF would solve this problem, among others as well. > http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=129387252319019 > > patches welcome ;) A formal syntax description might help with highligting, not with all assisting features

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Not trying to be harsh, but I'm not bloating my PHP example. That's the actual way Doctrine supports Metadata information. I can explain why. Conceptually, an architectural design of an entity should not know anything about its persistence information. By that means, we cannot for example implemen

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Am 10.05.2011 17:07, schrieb guilhermebla...@gmail.com: Is that still simple? You bloated the php example unnecessarily. This contains the same information as your Annotations example, which to me, is very similar. http://pastie.org/1886774 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Ferenc Kovacs wrote: sorry my FUD counter just overflowed with your last comment. Sorry you feel that way, but obviously there are more people with my view that we simply do not agree on IF annotation should be implemented. I'm a lot more comfortable with something that works WITH what we alrea

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/10/2011 12:37 PM, Drak wrote: PS - sorry to say this but from the other thread, all this talk of ecosystems is quite strange and full of FUD. The PHP eco-system depends on PHP and exists only because of PHP, not the other way round. If PHP adds a new syntax or new functions, the IDEs h

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:35 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi all, > > Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus. > I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we > can chat until reach some standardization and availability. > > I'll

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/10/2011 12:49 PM, Drak wrote: On 11 May 2011 01:30, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: One suggestion. Be very careful about anything that requires changes in the opcode caches out there. Such changes will be very slow in coming, if at all. It's unrelated to this thread but, what is the status of me

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 11 May 2011 01:30, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > One suggestion. Be very careful about anything that requires changes in the > opcode caches out there. Such changes will be very slow in coming, if at > all. It's unrelated to this thread but, what is the status of merging APC into the PHP core? I re

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/10/2011 12:35 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus. I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we can chat until reach some standardization and availability. I'll keep the old one for

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 10 May 2011 21:42, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: >> Annotations cannot be considered bloat because are being used >> increasingly everywhere that is a clear indication that they are >> required as part of the PHP core as much as many of the Spl classes. >> It should be clear by now that the PH

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi all, Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus. I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we can chat until reach some standardization and availability. I'll keep the old one for history purposes. It seems that none from core php devs acc

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > Christopher Jones wrote: > >> The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the >>> engine should we built around what IDE supports? >>> >> >> IDEs are part of the PHP ecosystem, just as much as frameworks, op >> code caches, d

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Christopher Jones wrote: The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the engine should we built around what IDE supports? IDEs are part of the PHP ecosystem, just as much as frameworks, op code caches, documentation, bug reports, maintenance issues and even current technology t

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Christopher Jones < christopher.jo...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > On 05/10/2011 05:28 AM, Martin Scotta wrote: > > The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the >> engine should we built around what IDE supports? >> > > IDEs are part of the PHP eco

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/10/2011 05:28 AM, Martin Scotta wrote: The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the engine should we built around what IDE supports? IDEs are part of the PHP ecosystem, just as much as frameworks, op code caches, documentation, bug reports, maintenance issues and ev

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 2011-05-10, "guilhermebla...@gmail.com" wrote: > There's just one reason that it cannot be possible to do inside docblocks: > - Code with and without comments should act the same. Why? Would you expect phpDocumentor to work without docblocks? No. Would you expect to know parameter types and

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Am 10.05.2011 17:57, schrieb Matthew Weier O'Phinney: > Just because developers are using annotations does not necessarily mean > we need a new syntax. Exactly the point I tried to make earlier -- just more to the point. -- Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consulta

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi Matthew, There's just one reason that it cannot be possible to do inside docblocks: - Code with and without comments should act the same. Also, no matter if it's inside docblocks or not, we'd still have a new syntax. No matter what you do. Even a key => value is a new syntax. But it seems that

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 2011-05-10, Drak wrote: > --0016e6db295ac0d29504a2e4229c > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On 10 May 2011 09:27, Mike Willbanks wrote: > > > I would argue that the introduction of this into the core is adding > > more feature bloat into the language that is not quite needed at > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Lars Schultz wrote: Am 10.05.2011 14:28, schrieb Martin Scotta: The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the engine should we built around what IDE supports? At least the much quoted user-base would welcome syntax-support for this feature, wouldn't you agree? If support is

RE: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Tue May 10 11:07 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I'm not putting traits support inclusion on risk. I'm a string +1 to > it. > All I want is that you stop giving stupid arguments to be against the > patch instead of giving *real* relevant arguments. > Complexity: http://en.wikipe

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: With Doctrine Annotations:http://pastie.org/1885284 With my proposal:http://pastie.org/1885294 Without Annotations:http://pastie.org/1885252 Is that still simple? But exactly what is wrong with the first one. It does not require getting a book out to work out wh

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi, You all think that mapping something can always be abstracted into a few lines like the one you presented. Well, in certain cases your idea is valid. I'd then point you an Entity mapping of Doctrine 2 with and without Annotations, so you can imagine how much it can abstract: With Doctrine Ann

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: I also have a personal problem with code that needs to introspect on every web request in order to run. But that is likely because I am old and gray and used to stare sceptically at the assembly output of the first C compilers to see if I could come up with an alternative th

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Am 10.05.2011 14:47, schrieb Martin Scotta: Annotated code integrates best with library/frameworks without the need to "extends" or "implements". Without annotation you will need to extend some class or to implement some interface. That means more code to write, more chances to shoot you foot. Um

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Am 10.05.2011 14:28, schrieb Martin Scotta: The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the engine should we built around what IDE supports? At least the much quoted user-base would welcome syntax-support for this feature, wouldn't you agree? If support is already there, that'

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Martin Scotta On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Lars Schultz wrote: > Am 10.05.2011 09:44, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs: > > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Chad Fulton >> wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine >>> wrote: >>> *IS* it clear by now that the majority of users

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On 05/10/2011 01:10 AM, Jordi Boggiano wrote: > >> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lars Schultz >> >>> To explain what I mean, I'll use the example provided in the RFC. Could >>> >>> anyone please explain the advantages of having "passive

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 05/10/2011 01:10 AM, Jordi Boggiano wrote: On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lars Schultz To explain what I mean, I'll use the example provided in the RFC. Could anyone please explain the advantages of having "passive" annotations over "active" PHP Code. I think your example shows very well

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Am 10.05.2011 10:10, schrieb Jordi Boggiano: I think the main reasons are standardization of the syntax and performance of the parsing. At the moment everyone has to cache the stuff because hitting the tokenizer every time is quite expensive. If implemented within PHP the existing opcode-caches c

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lars Schultz wrote: > What is the goal of having Annotations embedded in PHP? To nail down a > common syntax? To provide an interface for meta-information on a class? I think the main reasons are standardization of the syntax and performance of the parsing. At th

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Am 10.05.2011 09:44, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs: On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Chad Fulton wrote: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine wrote: *IS* it clear by now that the majority of users want this? For what it's worth, I still oppose Annotations. And the argument that 'You don'

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Chad Fulton wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > > *IS* it clear by now that the majority of users want this? > > For what it's worth, I still oppose Annotations. > > > And the argument > > that 'You don't have to use it' does not wash

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > *IS* it clear by now that the majority of users want this? For what it's worth, I still oppose Annotations. > And the argument > that 'You don't have to use it' does not wash either since once it has been > pushed in, some of the libraries w

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Le 10/05/2011 07:46, Lester Caine a écrit : > The existing tools had been working well, but nowadays things are simply > becoming a mess ... > I agree. Why not fixing the several hundreds of bugs in PHP before just even thinking about adding new features ??? I much respect people using my

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Drak wrote: > I would argue that the introduction of this into the core is adding more > feature bloat into the language that is not quite needed at this point. > Annotations cannot be considered bloat because are being used increasingly everywhere that is a clear indication that they are requ

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On 10 May 2011 09:27, Mike Willbanks wrote: > I would argue that the introduction of this into the core is adding more > feature bloat into the language that is not quite needed at this point. > Annotations cannot be considered bloat because are being used increasingly everywhere that is a clear

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi, Annotations as proposed in the RFC can not (or hardly) be develop as an extension (and so can not go into PECL). The proposed feature require modifications directly into the Zend Engine like for the inclusion of a new syntax which imply modification of the parser. Regards, Pierrick On 9 May

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Guilherme, As per many of the conversations on annotations one of that hardest parts of it is that there are generally 3 conversations going on about it when this starts to be discussed. It seems many threads are hi-jacked and I can understand why. I would like to state that annotations in the c

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi Stas, Comments inline. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> If possible, could you look at the patch and give me high level ideas >> of what could be changed? > > If the patch is the same RFC that is at > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations, the same problems that

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > If possible, could you look at the patch and give me high level ideas >> of what could be changed? >> > > If the patch is the same RFC that is at > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations, the same problems that were voiced a > number of

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi! If possible, could you look at the patch and give me high level ideas of what could be changed? If the patch is the same RFC that is at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations, the same problems that were voiced a number of times on the list stay: - it is overly complex (see class User ex

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

nto php source code. Thanks. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Marcelo Gornstein [mailto:marce...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:20 AM >> To: Stas Malyshev >> Cc: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; PHP

RE: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

> -Original Message- > From: Marcelo Gornstein [mailto:marce...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:20 AM > To: Stas Malyshev > Cc: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; PHP Internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again > > mm i don't remember saying anyt

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Mon, 9 May 2011, Marcelo Gornstein wrote: > mm i don't remember saying anything like that :) i dont want to start > an argument here, but maybe you'd like to take things less personal > and re-read my post. > > anyway, i think it's time to stop just saying "no", and really > collaborate with w

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

mm i don't remember saying anything like that :) i dont want to start an argument here, but maybe you'd like to take things less personal and re-read my post. anyway, i think it's time to stop just saying "no", and really collaborate with what the community is suggesting (and already propsed) in o

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi! my question is: is php a language made for the php developers that mantain the language or for the community that uses them and contributes to it everyday? Please stop trying to manipulate developers by suggesting if they don't do exactly what you want they hate (or don't care for) all us