Re: [RFC] PHP Annotations VS Attributes

On 30/04/2016 12:09, Fleshgrinder wrote:

Erm, actually I did not claim anything [...] I previously claimed that Microsoft does a perfect job.

Just thought I'd point out this contradiction.

That claim was based on the fact that the feature is called "Data Annotations" and that one can apply and create custom "Attributes" (Metadata).

It seems to me that "Data Annotations" are one particular use of a language feature which is called "attributes". Looking through the list of descendants of the base Attribute class [1], I can see lots of different usages, most of which don't refer to "annotations" anywhere that I can see, only to "applying the attribute". This is true even in prose introductions such "Controlling XML Serialization Using Attributes" [2] which has sentences like "Attributes can be used to control the XML serialization of an object or to create an alternate XML stream from the same set of classes." and "By applying a XmlArrayAttribute, you can change the name of the XML element, as follows." [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.attribute.aspx [2] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2baksw0z.aspx

One simply should not look at the term outside of the extension/library/namespace "Data Annotations" and everything is fine.

Why should we not look outside that namespace? What about that namespace makes it so special? If we transpose that logic to PHP, are you saying that it's OK for php.net to refer to "attributes" to discuss the feature, as long as Doctrine carries on using "annotations" for its usage of that feature?

The fact that .NET documentation is most of the time only talking about "Attributes" is because the documentation explains those classes and their usage.

Which classes?

I do not understand why this means for you that the whole feature is called attributes.

Because the documentation talking about the feature calls it that. Repeatedly. "The common language runtime allows you to add keyword-like descriptive declarations, called attributes..." https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/5x6cd29c.aspx "Apply the attribute to the code element by placing it immediately before the element." https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bfz783fz.aspx "Attributes provide a powerful method of associating metadata, or declarative information, with code..." https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z0w1kczw.aspx Helpfully, Microsoft make the C# Language Specification readily available, so I downloaded that [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=7029] The word "annotation" is used in only one context: "variance annotations", which are the "in" and "out" keywords that allow a Generic type parameter to be co- or contra-variant, and nothing to do with the feature we are discussing. The word "annotate" is also used in reference to documentation comments, and in the following sentence:

When an optional parameter is annotated with one of the caller info attributes, omitting the corresponding argument in a call does not necessarily cause the default parameter value to be substituted.

As far as I can see, it's not being used as a specific term in that sentence, and you could safely substitute "is marked with". "Attribute" meanwhile appears 19 times *in the Table of Contents*, all describing the feature we are discussing - the ability to add some syntax next to some code to apply metadata retrievable by reflection. The Appendix contains a set of grammar constructions for the grammar of the "[ Foo (Bar) ]" syntax used to apply attributes; the grammar rules all use the word "attribute", never "annotation".

I am sorry but this is about theoretical definition and not about some company chose to call it. Actually I am arguing against blindly following these companies (Facebook and/or Microsoft) and complying with the theoretical definitions.

Language is a funny thing: words mean what they mean because we agree on that meaning, and understand each other when we use it. A "theoretical definition" is no use at all if it's not how people actually use a word. Computer Science terms are doubly-cursed here, because rather than coining new words, we tend to stretch metaphorical use of existing terms from other fields, even when those fields overlap with our own. If a language as popular and influential as C# calls this feature "attributes", as I hope I've demonstrated it does, then it's hard to say that that's the "wrong" name - it is the name everybody in that community uses, and they all agree and understand its meaning.

As I wrote in the initial message regarding Perl. If the linked feature is *the only way* to add attributes than naming it attributes (standalone) is fine. However, if there are other means than same logic applies.

I still don't really understand what you mean by this. As far as I can see, the feature in Perl is exactly equivalent to the one proposed for PHP. Do you mean there is something in PHP which you consider to have prior claim to the word "attributes"?

I really do not understand why the usage of the term annotation is wrong in the Rust example. It is a hint for the compiler that can be added by the programmer or the compiler. That's pretty much a perfect usage according to the definition of an annotation.

I didn't say it was "wrong", I said it showed that "annotation" is just as ambiguous a term as "attribute". Pretty much any syntax can be referred to as an "annotation" (see the C# "in"/"out" example earlier), just as pretty much any modifier or property can be referred to as an "attribute". So in an ideal world, we wouldn't use either term if we wanted to unambiguously refer to a new feature. At best, the Rust example is irrelevant to the discussion; at worst, it weakens the case for "annotation" being an unambiguous term, which I thought was part of your argument.

The past and current RFCs are not proposing any attributes, they are proposing a system to annotate data with custom attributes.

Absolutely! But all we're deciding is what the language will call the overall feature - what page it will be on in the manual, what word will be used in the error messages, etc. In some languages, like Java, those resources would refer to "Annotations"; in other languages, like C#, those resources would refer to "Attributes". Both terms have advantages and disadvantages, precedents and connotations - and both have potential ambiguities with other uses of the normal English words that have been borrowed. In the end, it really is mostly a matter of taste. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]