On 5 March 2014 11:53, Cem Karan <cfkaran2@gmail.com> wrote:
Thoughts/suggestions?
I think the core/stdlib position is that agreeing conventions would be better done once some real world experience of the practical issues and benefits of annotations has been established. So while a proposal like this is not without merit, it needs to be considered in the light of how projects actually use annotations. Personally, I'm not aware of any libraries that make significant use of annotations, so a good first step would be to survey existing use, and summarise it here. That would allow you to clarify your proposal in terms of exactly how existing projects would need to modify their current code. Of course, there's likely a chicken and egg problem here - projects may be holding off using annotations through fear of issues caused by clashes. But I'm not sure that a UUID-based proposal like the above (which as you admit is very verbose, and not particularly user friendly) would be more likely to encourage use. If I were developing a library that would benefit from annotations, at this point in time I'd probably just choose whatever conventions suited me and go with those - likely marking the feature as "subject to change" initially. Then, when people raised bug reports or feature requests that asked for better interoperability, I'd look at how to achieve that in conjunction with the other project(s) that clashed with me. Paul