Re: Documention problems

Alexander Merz wrote:

I refuse to fill my code with crud to get around bugs in PHPDoc. This should be fixed in PHPDoc or one of the alternatives.

The @package behavior isn't a bug! It is the same in Javadoc. Try to make a sketch about the oo structure of ie Mail_* today +PEAR | +--+Mail | | | +Mail_mail | +Mail_smtp | +Mail_sendmail | +Mail_mime Mail_rfc822 Thats confusing, the @package problem is only a part of the careless hierarchy. I want a proper hierarchy. +PEAR | +--+Mail | +Mail_mail +Mail_smtp +Mail_sendmail +Mail_rfc822 +Mail_mime

The term "package" has a defined meaning in PEAR, and it's different from Java. We should care about implementing PHP/PEAR semantics in PHPDoc, not drag around this Java ball-and-chain legacy that does not fit us. Forcing every class in a package to inherit a class with the same name as the package is just wrong. For example, the DB package contains a DB_Error class that inherits PEAR_Error. Inheriting DB would not make it an error class would it? :-) I can give you more examples like this, but the point is that PHP/PEAR != Java, and JavaDoc != PHPDoc. The @package tag in PHPDoc should tell you what PEAR package the class belongs to. - Stig