|   | php.net | support | documentation | report a bug | advanced search | search howto | statistics | random bug | login | 
| 
  [2002-10-24 13:27 UTC] mattb at columbia dot edu
 Not sure if this is the correct forum for reporting PEAR bugs, but here goes...
It seems like if the leading ' * 's are missing from the body of a PHPDoc comment, some information will be lost (namely the @... tags). For example, the following comment will not have an author or package:
  /**
     This is my class. There are many like it, but this one
     is mine.
     @author Me <me@myself.org>
     @package my_package
   */
However, this one works fine:
  /**
   * This is my class. There are many like it, but this one 
   * is mine.
   *
   * @author Me <me@myself.org>
   * @package my_package
   */
Is there any reason why the *'s are required? Can the be made to be optional (comments are much easier to edit if they're not forced to be there)? Just my two cents....
PatchesPull RequestsHistoryAllCommentsChangesGit/SVN commits             | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|  Copyright © 2001-2025 The PHP Group All rights reserved. | Last updated: Fri Oct 31 12:00:01 2025 UTC | 
JavaDoc does *not* do this. JavaDoc ignores the following pattern in its comments (i.e., /** ... */): ^([[:space:]]*\*+)?[[:space:]]* - (or in preg format:) - ^(\s*\*+)?\s* So the following comments will work in JavaDoc (and rightly so) but not in PHPDoc: /** This is a description. */ /** * This is another description. */ /** *******************This is yet another description. */ The *'s are not necessary for JavaDoc to parse the comments correctly. PHPDoc makes them *required* and is very picky about where they should be, which doesn't leave any room for the developer (plus they're just a pain in the butt to type all the time). Like you said, it's a convention, but not a rule. Making it a rule is far too restrictive to be truly useful. Not to mention it's a rule that doesn't have any added benefit to the programmer.