On May 10, 2011, at 18:57, "Matthew Weier O'Phinney" <weierophin...@php.net> wrote:
> With annotations, my main issue, which I voiced early (and others did as > well), is that we can already do much of what the RFC proposes by > parsing annotations in docblocks. In fact, adding the support > potentially creates more work for developers (more on that below). > > I don't see a need for a new grammar and syntax; why don't we just > provide a standard for annotations within docblocks, and provide a > native parser for annotations that follow that format? This allows folks > who are already using docblock annotations a boost in speed, and only > gets invoked during reflection (since otherwise it's considered a > comment). > > Guilherme often raises ZF's server classes as poster children for why > annotations support is needed. However, I'd like to note that I don't > feel this way at all. In fact, annotations support would create _more_ > work for us. Why? Because now we'd need both our docblock comments (in > order to generate the API docs) AND annotations (to provide the server > hinting we provide, which currently is derived from PHPDoc annotations). > A native docblock annotation parser would much better suit our purposes. > > So, basically, we're in a situation where there's no consensus on > whether the feature is needed or what the approach should be, and people > pointing fingers at eachother indicating the other party is not > listening or providing constructive feedback. I think that's reason > enough to pan the feature for 5.4. Couldn't have phrase it better, it illustrates the opinion I shared here a few months ago very well. +1 Zeev -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
