raski
>>> 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 wrote:
>>> > Suggesting phpdoc is used for
Hi,
I certainly don't have PHP-Karma (Does meritocracy really refer to
that?), but simply I can't believe that you're talking about this, again.
I think Annotation-Supporters have made their point, but shouldn't they
let the PHP 5.4 Developers get on with it and let them roll out a new
versi
Hi Larry,
Of course I know how it can benefit a full stack framework.
For example Zend Framework can benefit of it by auto-generating WSDL
files in Zend_Soap.
You're right about Symfony integrated system of property validation of
Domain Objects.
If you would like to see how it would be implemente
On 11/18/10 7:34 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Larry,
For existent project examples and usage, here are 2 links of the
upcoming versions of Doctrine 2 and Symfony 2:
http://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/orm/2.0/docs/reference/basic-mapping/en#introduction-to-docblock-annotations
h
On Thu Nov 18 08:34 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> For existent project examples and usage, here are 2 links of the
> upcoming versions of Doctrine 2 and Symfony 2:
>
> http://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/orm/2.0/docs/reference/basic-
> mapping/en#introduction-to-docbl
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 15:07 -0200, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I'll start a series of topics (in this thread) about meta attribute
> > (aka. Annotations) discussion.
>
> Completely ignoring the actual issue, just in respo
Hi Larry,
For existent project examples and usage, here are 2 links of the
upcoming versions of Doctrine 2 and Symfony 2:
http://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/orm/2.0/docs/reference/basic-mapping/en#introduction-to-docblock-annotations
http://docs.symfony-reloaded.org/guides/validator.html
P
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 15:07 -0200, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'll start a series of topics (in this thread) about meta attribute
> (aka. Annotations) discussion.
Completely ignoring the actual issue, just in response to the subject:
We should focus on getting 5.4 out. And n
On Wednesday, November 17, 2010 5:56:05 am Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Arvids Godjuks
> > >
> > > wrote:
> >> Hello Internals!
> >>
> >> For me, as a user-land developer, this issue seems as if some people
>
On 15 November 2010 17:07, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'll start a series of topics (in this thread) about meta attribute
> (aka. Annotations) discussion.
> So as soon as we agree on each topic I'll open another point to be discussed.
> Only when we reach some consensus I'll
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Arvids Godjuks > wrote:
>
>> Hello Internals!
>>
>> For me, as a user-land developer, this issue seems as if some people
>> are trying to push the annotations at any cost. What they fail to see,
>> is
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Arvids Godjuks
wrote:
> Hello Internals!
>
> For me, as a user-land developer, this issue seems as if some people
> are trying to push the annotations at any cost. What they fail to see,
> is that annotations are never described what they are and how they can
> be
Hello Internals!
For me, as a user-land developer, this issue seems as if some people
are trying to push the annotations at any cost. What they fail to see,
is that annotations are never described what they are and how they can
be useful in our developer work. Right now I, and I think many other
u
On 17 November 2010 01:54, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I would have no trouble accepting a rejection of annotations on the actual
>> merits, but the interminable sequence of comparisons to phpdoc make it
>> clear to me that people just don't realize the potential of annotations.
>
> People do
Hi Gustavo,
Normal instantiation cannot be done.
Here is a sample where it would fail:
new Foo()
class User { ... }
So it must be something different.
[]s,
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:54:22 -, Stas Malyshev
> wrote:
>
>> The problem is n
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:54:22 -, Stas Malyshev
wrote:
The problem is not new syntax per se. The problem is new syntax for
things that already have old syntax.
This is incontestably false. Although a big portion of the use cases can
awkwardly use the user-space parsed and interpreted d
-1
I won't be using it. I won't argue on this thread since it is a +/-
vote on the idea of Annotations, not the proposed implementation of
it.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi!
I would have no trouble accepting a rejection of annotations on the actual
merits, but the interminable sequence of comparisons to phpdoc make it
clear to me that people just don't realize the potential of annotations.
People do realize the potential, what you and many "+1" voters seem to
Hi!
Poll will be opened for voting for 7 days (1 week) starting from now.
Poll will be closed next Monday at 5pm GMT.
Question: Does PHP need meta attribute support?
Unless there's a simple way of describing it - without adding a lot of
complexity and introducing multiple new syntax construct
On Nov 16, 2010, at 13:27 , Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Chad Fulton wrote:
>
>> I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate the effort
>> you've put into this RFC so far, but what I meant is that (although I
>> don't have karma and won't be voting), *if*
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Chad Fulton wrote:
> I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate the effort
> you've put into this RFC so far, but what I meant is that (although I
> don't have karma and won't be voting), *if* I were to vote, I would
> only +1 annotations if they were
I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate the effort
you've put into this RFC so far, but what I meant is that (although I
don't have karma and won't be voting), *if* I were to vote, I would
only +1 annotations if they were extremely limited (key=>value pairs).
That's why implementati
I don't wanna be bad interpreted or considered as rude, but I wonder
why is it so hard for all of you to just vote instead of stay crying
like lost babies.
PHP is open for everyone to contribute, I want to help it but it seems
impossible to help language move forward without people that accept
glob
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:37:44 -, Chad Fulton
wrote:
I also don't think you can discuss annotations without simultaneously
discussing their implementation. To me, it looks like you're trying to
force through a vote on a very vague topic "should PHP support
Annotations", and then use that vo
@Chad: You're getting me wrong here.
If results of poll decide for OK to meta attribute support, next poll
would be which implementation to choose.
I can find 3 different implementations that we can choose, but anyone
is free to contribute.
- Docblock
/** @Foo */
class User { ... }
- New syntax
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Lars Schultz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I certainly don't have PHP-Karma (Does meritocracy really refer to that?),
> but simply I can't believe that you're talking about this, again.
>
> I think Annotation-Supporters have made their point, but shouldn't they let
> the PHP 5.
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 07:06:27 -, Zeev Suraski wrote:
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
November-16-10 2:21 AM - Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Like I said – of course annotations bring value. If that was the only
> property when evaluating a new feature to be added, PHP would very
> quickly become an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink language.
> Thankfully, it’s not.
Amen.
-1
Best Regards
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lester,
If you READ my first email of this thread, you'll find out I do not
speak about new syntax, etc.
No matter if you say "that can be done through docblock", you're
automatically saying +1 to this thread.
Please re-read the topic and vote. Thanks.
Doe
Hi Lester,
If you READ my first email of this thread, you'll find out I do not
speak about new syntax, etc.
No matter if you say "that can be done through docblock", you're
automatically saying +1 to this thread.
Please re-read the topic and vote. Thanks.
Cheers,
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:38
> From: guilhermebla...@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 4:28 AM
>> To: Zeev Suraski
>> Cc: PHP internals
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support
>> discussion
>>
>> @Ze
On 16 November 2010 07:06, Zeev Suraski 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: [PH
+1
Denis
Da: "Will Fitch"
A: "Zeev Suraski"
Cc: guilhermebla...@gmail.com, "PHP internals"
Inviato: Martedì, 16 novembre 2010 8:43:39
Oggetto: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support
discussion
Your answer should have be
e language, a whole branch of it in the
> case of
> > annotations - and there simply isn't.
> > >
> > > Zeev
> > >
> > >> -Original Message-
> > >> From: guilhermebla...@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
> > >
( Try again Zeev changing the pigging address ;) )
Zeev Suraski wrote:
I hope I won't stir the pot too much, but with all due respect to the vote of
at-best a two digit subset of an arbitrary 3000+ subscribers to internals,
there's an overwhelming majority amongst the principal developers of PH
If past experience is any indicator then you’re hardly correct regarding your
first statement – being able to do something in PHP was no insurance against
proposals suggesting new ways of doing the same thing – often in an improved
way.
Re: the 2nd part, extending phpdoc would be way less obscu
ubject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations)
> support
> > discussion
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > > Suggesting phpdoc is used for the purposes mentioned does not mean we
> > don't understand what
Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support
> discussion
>
> @Zeev: That topic was related to an already built patch, which some where in
> favor, some against. That discussion lead to nowhere.
> So I opened a thread top
> -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
> discussio
2010/11/16 Pierrick Charron :
> +1
+1 for annotations in 5.4
--
regards,
Kalle Sommer Nielsen
ka...@php.net
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Zeev
-Original Message-
From: guilhermebla...@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 7:08 PM
To: PHP internals
Subject: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support
discussion
Hi folks,
I'll start a series of topics (in this th
> > > Zeev
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: guilhermebla...@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 7:08 PM
> > >> To: PHP internals
> > >> Subject: [PHP-DEV] PHP
>> -Original Message-
> >> From: guilhermebla...@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 7:08 PM
> >> To: PHP internals
> >> Subject: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support
> >> discus
overwhelmingly good reason to
>>> add a brand new syntax to the language, a whole branch of it in the case of
>>> annotations - and there simply isn't.
>>>
>>> Zeev
>>>
>>> -Original Message-----
>>>> From: guilhermebla...@gma
als
Subject: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support
discussion
Hi folks,
I'll start a series of topics (in this thread) about meta attribute (aka.
Annotations) discussion.
So as soon as we agree on each topic I'll open another point to be discussed.
Only when we reac
@Will: Patch works perfectly with PHP 5.3. There is just a minor issue
related to APC not caching instances.
That patch didn't reach a consensus and that's why I opened a
different thread to implement a patch based on poll results.
Cheers,
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Will Fitch wrote:
> Wo
whole branch of it in the case of
> annotations - and there simply isn't.
>
> Zeev
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: guilhermebla...@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 7:08 PM
>> To: PHP internals
>> Sub
Mostly it is that a new syntax will confuse people and add complexity
that PHP doesn't need. The same people don't believe that annotations
bring value worthy of adding a new syntax. Short array notation and
similar are noted as precedence.
That is a bulk of the arguments, but if I have forgot
Wow. I should actually look at the RFCs more frequently.
I have to say, assuming the patch is valid for PHP 5.3 (which I have no
doubt it is), I don't see why this can't be taken more seriously. I know
the discussion was brought up a few weeks ago, but what are the objections
to injecting this fu
The patch is already written and a RFC created by Guilherme:
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations .
I personally think annotations could make a *great* addition to PHP.
I agree with Will that annotations are especially useful for SOAP and
XML-RPC. I personally think annotations are useful for A
I have certainly wanted them many times - especially when using SOAP.
Having WSDL auto-generation without compromising developer
documentation and attempting to have user-land code parse phpdoc for this
purpose seem{ed,s} counterintuitive. That said, introducing annotations is
a HUGE undertaking
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Zeev Suraski 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?
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.ne
guilhermebla...@gmail.com; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support
> discussion
>
> hi,
>
> The good reason is to actually understand what we are talking about.
> And seeing phpdoc mentioned in almost all replies tell me that w
@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 7:08 PM
>> To: PHP internals
>> Subject: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support
>> discussion
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I'll start a series of t
--Original Message-
> From: guilhermebla...@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 7:08 PM
> To: PHP internals
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support
> discussion
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'll st
Hi folks,
I'll start a series of topics (in this thread) about meta attribute
(aka. Annotations) discussion.
So as soon as we agree on each topic I'll open another point to be discussed.
Only when we reach some consensus I'll open another topic discussion.
I suggest to have a poll for each topic,
56 matches
Mail list logo
