Re: annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Mike van Riel <mike.vanriel@naenius.com>wrote: > On 05/10/2011 10:03 PM, Chad Fulton wrote: > >> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:35 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com >> <guilhermeblanco@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 history purposes. It seems that none from >>> core php devs accepted it, so I'll move it to rejected. >>> As I told you previously, all I wanted was some good feedback to give >>> a north and that's what I had. >>> >>> As soon as I finish the new RFC, I'll open another thread here for >>> fine-grain the support and discuss architecture. >>> I'll keep Stas comments in mind when creating it, so it would help in >>> discussions. It seems we still have 2 weeks to discuss the new idea >>> and less than 2 months to get it ready if everyone agreed. >>> >> Please first take a look at the current RFC regarding parsing >> docblocks: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/docblockparser . Even >> if you want >> to put up a competing RFC, at least you can use it as a point of >> reference. >> >> Chad >> > > Additionally I would recommend reading the JavaDoc and phpDocumentor rules > concerning DocBlocks. > As far as I can see the RFC mentioned above is incomplete with respect to > the current syntax guidelines for DocBlocks as mentioned in the documents > above; which is used for quite a bit of projects out there. > > I'll keep my eyes open for the new RFC to see if I can contribute some of > my experiences to the efforts. > I hope that my experiences building the Static Reflection for DocBlocks in > DocBlox can prove useful. > as phpDocumentor is dead and doesn't support "new" things like namespace and closures, we should take those into account also. Tyrael