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
Hi,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk 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
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
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
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 the
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
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 -
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Lars Schultz lars.schu...@toolpark.comwrote:
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
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
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
The roadmap is in the form of a feature list which you can find at
http://wiki.php.net/etcwiki.php.net/etc
There is never going to be complete agreement on any feature, but once
there is enough agreement from the main
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 need
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
mailto:4dc826b1.4090...@lerdorf.com 4dc82a36.8090...@lerdorf.com
mailto:4dc82a36.8090...@lerdorf.com
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
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
mailto:4dc826b1.4090...@lerdorf.com
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com 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
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.
On 11 May 2011 07:50, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.com 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,
Am 11.05.2011 13:31, schrieb Richard Quadling:
On 11 May 2011 07:50, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.com 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
On 11 May 2011 18:07, Christian Kaps christian.k...@mohiva.com 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
On 05/10/2011 10:03 PM, Chad Fulton wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:35 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
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
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Mike van Riel mike.vanr...@naenius.comwrote:
On 05/10/2011 10:03 PM, Chad Fulton wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:35 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some
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
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
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Mike van Riel mike.vanr...@naenius.comwrote:
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
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
On 2011-05-11, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk 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.
On 2011-05-11, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk 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
On May 11, 2011, at 4:00 AM, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com 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
Hi Larz,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Lars Schultz lars.schu...@toolpark.com 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?
Hi Lester,
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk 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
Hi Rasmus,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com 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
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 it
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:
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lester,
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk 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
Hi Larz,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Lars Schultz lars.schu...@toolpark.com 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
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com 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
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]
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
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
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
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 lars.schu...@toolpark.com
wrote:
Am 11.05.2011 00:28, schrieb guilhermebla...@gmail.com:
- Entities with knowledge about its persistence
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
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
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi duke,
I
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 basic
@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 dukeofgam...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:57 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
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 chat
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
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk 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
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Chad Fulton chadful...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk 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
Am 10.05.2011 09:44, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Chad Fultonchadful...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
*IS* it clear by now that the majority of users want this?
For what it's worth, I still oppose
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lars Schultz
lars.schu...@toolpark.com 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
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
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
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com 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
Martin Scotta
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Lars Schultz lars.schu...@toolpark.comwrote:
Am 10.05.2011 09:44, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Chad Fultonchadful...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk
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 already there,
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.
Umm.
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
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
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
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:
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
On 2011-05-10, Drak d...@zikula.org wrote:
--0016e6db295ac0d29504a2e4229c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 10 May 2011 09:27, Mike Willbanks pen...@gmail.com wrote:
I would argue that the introduction of this into the core is adding
more feature bloat into the language that is
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
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
On 2011-05-10, guilhermebla...@gmail.com 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
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
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 ecosystem, just
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
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk 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
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
On 10 May 2011 21:42, Matthew Weier O'Phinney weierophin...@php.net 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
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
On 11 May 2011 01:30, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com 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
On 05/10/2011 12:49 PM, Drak wrote:
On 11 May 2011 01:30, Rasmus Lerdorfras...@lerdorf.com 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
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:35 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
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
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
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
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
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
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-internalsm=129387252319019
patches welcome ;)
A formal syntax description might help with highligting, not with all
assisting features an
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 - just
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
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
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 what the
-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 anything like that :) i dont want to start
a...@zend.com 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 Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again
mm i don't remember saying anything like that :) i dont
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
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
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
Hi Stas,
Comments inline.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com 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
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
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
On 10 May 2011 09:27, Mike Willbanks pen...@gmail.com 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
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
94 matches
Mail list logo
