Re: Re: Need feedback about PEAR Coding Standard relatedto PHP_CodeSnifferusage

On Dec 19, 2007 12:32 PM, Laurent Laville <pear@laurent-laville.org> wrote: > Sorry , I was a bit to hurry yesterday night. > > Parameters was of course for constructor of class declaration : > I wasn't meaning that the format of the code would have been incorrect specifically because of those parameters, though now that you mention it I guess technically you're right about that. I was meaning that I thought putting an entire class declaration block inside an IF block was not legal. So, if ($flag) { class A {} } else { class A {} } is enough to display what I thought wasn't legal. Assuming this *is *legal, then that concern of mine is put to rest. Getting back to the original question, I wonder, then, would a future possibility of phpcs handling docblock templates be enough to allow doing this for now: /**#@+ * our declaration of Class A * @package MyPackage */ if ($flag) { /** * @internal class as set by a TRUE $flag */ class A {} } else { /** * @internal class as set by a FALSE $flag * @ignore */ class A {} } /**#@-*/ That helps mitigate the duplication of putting two fully populated docblocks with each class declaration block. Though again, this means that it will remain a CS warning/error until such time as we get docblock template handling into PHPCS. Now, the @ignore means that the second class structure definition won't be documented by PhpDocumentor, so no one reading your API doc will know anything about it, particularly what makes it any different from the first class structure definition that *is* visible in the API doc. But of course that is an API doc concern and not a PHPCS concern. -- CRB