On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Chad Fulton <chadful...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate the effort > you've put into this RFC so far, but what I meant is that (although I > don't have karma and won't be voting), *if* I were to vote, I would > only +1 annotations if they were extremely limited (key=>value pairs). > if that what you want, you should vote +1 for the annotations, or open a new vote for extending the reflection api to allow getting invidual docblock tags, or just write a wrapper for the ReflectionProperty::getDocComment. > That's why implementation matters to me - I see the benefit of simple > meta-data retrieval but not an extensive syntax addition to the > language. > thats a question about the implementation. vote for that in the next round. > > I also think that's why you see people suggesting docblock, because > what it already offers is similar to this key=>value metadata > retrieval using the @tag syntax. currently there is very little support for the docblock in the php core itself, as I mentioned you can only get a whole block through reflection, and I don't really know, how that got into the language. :) > Really, people are saying they favor > some meta-data retrieval but not the complicated annotations that you > want. > so it seems, that some kind of metadata storing, retrival mechanism is wanted, thats good to hear. Tyrael
