Hi!
It seems that there is a misunderstanding about the goals of the
annotations. They are not meant to be read by human being
(javadoc/phpdoc/etc. are) but to be parsed automatically to be used
for services.
If it's for services/phpdoc, why can't it be part of phpdoc?
I see here a whole new
Hey everyone,
I want to re-drop my proposal onto the table that is just a shortcut
notation for php class instantiation inside that brackets (omiting the
new keyword):
annotation := [className(classArgs*)]
classArgs := array | string | int | float | ...
Re-pasting my examples (this time from sim
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> The separator never was a problem... but I definately don't want to
>> see another 6 months just to define what would the separator be.
>> If we need to drop [] in favor of array support, I vote for ! as
>> separator.
>
> The separat
Hi!
The separator never was a problem... but I definately don't want to
see another 6 months just to define what would the separator be.
If we need to drop [] in favor of array support, I vote for ! as separator.
The separator is not a problem (even though 1-char one produces much
less clutte
Hi Stas and Christian,
The separator never was a problem... but I definately don't want to
see another 6 months just to define what would the separator be.
If we need to drop [] in favor of array support, I vote for ! as separator.
!Author("Guilherme Blanco")
!Validation(!Email(checkMX = true))
Hi,
>> %Annotation(%Email(checkMX = true));
at first I thought what for an ugly syntax. But after a time I think it
is regardless of whether the % or @(from Java, which I prefer over all,
if it were possible) syntax is used. It looks very similar. So I prefer
the % syntax so we can use the [] fo
