On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <i...@tyrael.hu> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godj...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hello Internals! >> >> For me, as a user-land developer, this issue seems as if some people >> are trying to push the annotations at any cost. What they fail to see, >> is that annotations are never described what they are and how they can >> be useful in our developer work. Right now I, and I think many other >> user-land developers, just fail to see what the annotations are >> without any meaningful example. >> >> Right now I stand for ditching the annotations and schedule to return >> to them later, after 5.4 or whatever it will be. >> Right now there are more pressing things to deal with in PHP: >> * PDO is stuck in its development and mysqli & co are quite better >> developed. >> * tainted variables are a huge bonus but somehow they are stuck in the >> draft mode too (http://wiki.php.net/rfc/taint - hell, I wait for this >> getting into the PHP for a loooooooooooong time and there are patches) >> * Traits are mostly discussed and probably need finishing touches. >> And these have a clear and understood benefit of being worked upon. >> Annotations now are just a big WTF. The fact that only a handful of >> developers reply to this thread (remember the type hinting thread - >> there where tons of reply's from many people) just shows that we as a >> com unity are not ready for annotations. Most of us just don't know >> that this is and how it's supposed to be used, >> >> Really, there is a ton of work to finish what is already has been >> started and needs attention. Type hints had the same story as >> annotations now. No easy agreement - ditched the discussion till next >> major version. >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> >> > I agree with you; there are more important issues than some "syntactic > sugar", for example Large File Support, unicode support, pdo, pecl4win, > optimizating the error handling (generating full backtrace and such for > every error, which are just gets discarded/ignored, etc.), upload progress > (I think APC provides this.), to name just a few from the top of my head. > the only problem is, that they either hard, or boring to implement, or > there isn't any agreement on them. > > my point is with this is that maybe there are more important features for > you, or for me, but if nobody can/want working on those issues, why should > we reject an improvement, which has actiove supporters? (they did write an > RFC and patch, and they brought the issue to the list, so everybody can tell > their opinion/concerns, and help to chose the best possible solution). > > So as long as the above mentioned problems are unsolved, we could reject > every other improvement/addition, because there are more important, or older > problems to solve. > But I wont go to that direction, would you? > > On the other hand: it seems that more examples about the usage wouldn't hurt in the RFC... Tyrael
