On 2011-05-09, Marcelo Gornstein <marce...@gmail.com> wrote: > regarding the annotations stuff: it seems the php community (in > general) really wants annotations. lots of important and widely used > frameworks use them (meaning that not only the plain php users have a > use for this feature, but also the users of the respective frameworks, > increasing the overall user number interested). i.e: doctrine, > symfony2, ding, phpunit, etc, etc. we cant just ignore this fact.
There are annotations, and annotations. Some folks are perfectly fine with ad-hoc annotations support possible by parsing docblocks (Sebastian B. has mentioned as much in relation to PHPUnit). Others are wanting what is essentially a new, parsable, syntax on top of PHP. Others are interested in this latter, but feel that a userland parser that uses code generation to produce executable PHP code is sufficient. The point is, there's still debate about whether the feature as proposed is needed, and, if so, the full scope of features required to support it, and what implications those have for the language. > also, this means that there are tons of custom annotations > implementations (almost one per framework that has a use for them), > and we end up duplicating code and slowing the overall performance > for applications. > > my question is: is php a language made for the php developers that > mantain the language or for the community that uses them and > contributes to it everyday? > > just a thought > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@lerdorf.com> wrote: >> On 05/09/2011 07:44 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> - Annotations >>> >>> I already proposed a patch and none here discussed. You rather >>> preferred to shout "PHP doesn't need Annotations" instead of discuss >>> the patch that was proposed. >> >> If someone doesn't agree that annotations belong in PHP why do the details >> of the patch matter? >> >>> PS: I think that internals mailing list should be revised with all >>> proposed ideas and wrap them on a better plan. >>> It seems to me that you are not interested on user's request and >>> rather accept/implement only what the features that interest you. It's >>> very bad for the language and very bad for all of users. >> >> That's simply not true. But just because one group of users feel strongly >> about something doesn't mean it should go in. There has to be some level of >> curation or we end up with every feature under the sun resulting in a huge >> mess. >> >> -Rasmus >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> >> > > > -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Project Lead | matt...@zend.com Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/ PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
