I think everyone is jumping the gun on this. Let's let Alec, et al. finish the newly proposed RFC and then argue about it. If the consensus is still that the complexity and drag in the introduced syntax outweighs the benefits, we put it to bed or try again. Fair enough?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <i...@tyrael.hu> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 17, 2010, at 4:29, "guilhermebla...@gmail.com" < > > guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Stas, > > > > > > Ok, so you think I should just consider everyone want some sort of > > > meta attribute support and start discussing the topics? > > > > Of course not. Assuming meta support requires substantial additions of > > syntax then it's very far from consensus. > > > > A more productive approach would be coming up with ways to do it with > > existing functionality (maybe with some minor additions), which makes > phpdoc > > a natural option to look at (even if it's not the incarnation of the > perfect > > annotations solution). > > > > Zeev > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg47732.html > you said that before. > and this is where the discussion started about the alternative syntax and > implementation. > you said, that you see the usefulness, you just don't think that it worths > the complexity and the new syntax. > if that so, then I can't see, why can't we move on from the why is this > useful to the how and what should we implement. > in the end, it would only gets in to the trunk if the prominent coredevs(as > you, Rasmus, etc.) accept it, so I don't know why are you afraid continuing > the discussion about this feature. > > Tyrael > -- Thanks, Will Fitch Director of Operations | Quepasa.com 931.205.8242 | will.fi...@quepasacorp.com Twitter: twitter.com/willfitch
