On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre....@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:45 AM > > To: Zeev Suraski > > Cc: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; PHP internals > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) > support > > discussion > > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > > Suggesting phpdoc is used for the purposes mentioned does not mean we > > don't understand what we're talking about. > > > > I feel like you never used annotations in other languages, did you? > > You got me... But as an intelligent human being I'd like to think I can > evaluate the merits of a feature without having to actually use it. > > I'm not saying that annotations don't give you any value. Sure they do. > I'm saying that they come at a great price of adding an obscure branch of > syntax into a language that's already grown significantly in complexity, and > the bang for the buck isn't worth it. Those advanced developers needing > that feature can make do with phpdoc. > > Zeev > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > it can't see your point. if the current phpdoc would be enough, then they wouldn't propose the annotation. if you can't do everything with phpdoc that you could do with annotation, then I can see 2 choice: - forget the advanced stuff, but in this case, don try to sound as the phpdoc would be an alternative - extend the phpdoc support to cover the missing parts: how would that less obscure? phpdoc isn't up for the task. if you did read the RFC and did your research about the annotations, then you know that.
Tyrael
