Re: Re: PHP Annotations RFC + Patch

On 2010-09-16, Guilherme Blanco <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote: > > > Again, you change the meanings of something I write. > > > I do not want Java Annotations on PHP. But I want a clean way to > > > include metadata mapping on my class/property/method/function. > > > > Everybody wants a clean way to include metadata. It's *what* this way is > > where the difference is. So is the vote about having any metadata retrieval > > mechanism? Specific proposal exactly as proposed? Some generalization of the > > proposal without specifying some details? > > The RFC contains all details of proposal. > If the syntax is not ok, then let's discuss the implementation once it > gets accepts or forget about it if not. But overall functionality is > described there. I think the functionality of annotations needs to be proposed separately from the syntax of annotations. Right now, the RFC is tying the two together -- I think it's much more likely that you'll get buy-in for annotations if we can focus on their purpose within the language first. From there, work on determining whether it requires language level enhancements, and what those may be -- the syntax and functionality as expressed in the patch, or another possibility entirely. I know _I_, for one, am not comfortable voting on the current RFC due to questions on the approach -- though I _am_ generally in favor of the idea of annotations. (I'm still not entirely convinced that the same goals could not be achieved via code written on top of a docblock parser extension.) -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Project Lead | matthew@zend.com Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/ PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc