On 30/04/2016 12:09, Fleshgrinder wrote:
Erm, actually I did not claim anything [...] I previously claimed that Microsoft does a perfect job.
Just thought I'd point out this contradiction.

That claim was based on the fact that the feature is called "Data Annotations" and that
one can apply and create custom "Attributes" (Metadata).
It seems to me that "Data Annotations" are one particular use of a
language feature which is called "attributes". Looking through the list
of descendants of the base Attribute class [1], I can see lots of
different usages, most of which don't refer to "annotations" anywhere
that I can see, only to "applying the attribute". This is true even in
prose introductions such "Controlling XML Serialization Using
Attributes" [2] which has sentences like "Attributes can be used to
control the XML serialization of an object or to create an alternate XML
stream from the same set of classes." and "By applying a
XmlArrayAttribute, you can change the name of the XML element, as follows."

[1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.attribute.aspx
[2] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2baksw0z.aspx

One simply should not look at the term outside of the
extension/library/namespace "Data Annotations" and everything is fine.
Why should we not look outside that namespace? What about that namespace
makes it so special?

If we transpose that logic to PHP, are you saying that it's OK for
php.net to refer to "attributes" to discuss the feature, as long as
Doctrine carries on using "annotations" for its usage of that feature?

The fact that .NET documentation is most of the time only talking about
"Attributes" is because the documentation explains those classes and
their usage.
Which classes?

I do not understand why this means for you that the whole
feature is called attributes.
Because the documentation talking about the feature calls it that.

"The common language runtime allows you to add keyword-like descriptive
declarations, called attributes..."

"Apply the attribute to the code element by placing it immediately
before the element."

"Attributes provide a powerful method of associating metadata, or
declarative information, with code..."

Helpfully, Microsoft make the C# Language Specification readily
available, so I downloaded that

The word "annotation" is used in only one context: "variance
annotations", which are the "in" and "out" keywords that allow a Generic
type parameter to be co- or contra-variant, and nothing to do with the
feature we are discussing. The word "annotate" is also used in reference
to documentation comments, and in the following sentence:
When an optional parameter is annotated with one of the caller info
attributes, omitting the corresponding argument in a call does not
necessarily cause the default parameter value to be substituted.

As far as I can see, it's not being used as a specific term in that
sentence, and you could safely substitute "is marked with".

"Attribute" meanwhile appears 19 times *in the Table of Contents*, all
describing the feature we are discussing - the ability to add some
syntax next to some code to apply metadata retrievable by reflection.
The Appendix contains a set of grammar constructions for the grammar of
the "[ Foo (Bar) ]" syntax used to apply attributes; the grammar rules
all use the word "attribute", never "annotation".

I am sorry but this is about theoretical definition and not about some
company chose to call it. Actually I am arguing against blindly
following these companies (Facebook and/or Microsoft) and complying with
the theoretical definitions.
Language is a funny thing: words mean what they mean because we agree on
that meaning, and understand each other when we use it. A "theoretical
definition" is no use at all if it's not how people actually use a word.
Computer Science terms are doubly-cursed here, because rather than
coining new words, we tend to stretch metaphorical use of existing terms
from other fields, even when those fields overlap with our own.

If a language as popular and influential as C# calls this feature
"attributes", as I hope I've demonstrated it does, then it's hard to say
that that's the "wrong" name - it is the name everybody in that
community uses, and they all agree and understand its meaning.

As I wrote in the initial message regarding Perl. If the linked feature
is *the only way* to add attributes than naming it attributes
(standalone) is fine. However, if there are other means than same logic
I still don't really understand what you mean by this. As far as I can
see, the feature in Perl is exactly equivalent to the one proposed for
PHP. Do you mean there is something in PHP which you consider to have
prior claim to the word "attributes"?

I really do not understand why the usage of the term annotation is wrong
in the Rust example. It is a hint for the compiler that can be added by
the programmer or the compiler. That's pretty much a perfect usage
according to the definition of an annotation.
I didn't say it was "wrong", I said it showed that "annotation" is just
as ambiguous a term as "attribute". Pretty much any syntax can be
referred to as an "annotation" (see the C# "in"/"out" example earlier),
just as pretty much any modifier or property can be referred to as an
"attribute". So in an ideal world, we wouldn't use either term if we
wanted to unambiguously refer to a new feature. At best, the Rust
example is irrelevant to the discussion; at worst, it weakens the case
for "annotation" being an unambiguous term, which I thought was part of
your argument.

The past and current RFCs are not proposing any attributes, they are
proposing a system to annotate data with custom attributes.
Absolutely! But all we're deciding is what the language will call the
overall feature - what page it will be on in the manual, what word will
be used in the error messages, etc. In some languages, like Java, those
resources would refer to "Annotations"; in other languages, like C#,
those resources would refer to "Attributes".

Both terms have advantages and disadvantages, precedents and
connotations - and both have potential ambiguities with other uses of
the normal English words that have been borrowed. In the end, it really
is mostly a matter of taste.


Rowan Collins

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 1 of 3 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupphp-internals @
postedApr 30, '16 at 9:53p
activeMay 1, '16 at 11:19a



site design / logo © 2019 Grokbase