Also on your fork Rarst mentioned that using PHPDoc is unfortunately problematic with respect to opcode caches that might throw out the comments. I’m currently considering that we might be able to use “reserved name” constants instead of PHPDoc tags. It would be a bit less elegant but it would be more reliable.

Forgetting to include the prefix gives immediate results: nothing happens. Forgetting to specify nohook, on the other hand, can give weird bugs which might not be readily apparent.

In addition, if you are writing "filter_x", you'd be looking at the source to see whether it's an action or a filter anyway, so I don't see that as a problem.

It's the opposite of a magical convention, specifically because you are writing exactly what you want filtered.

The problem with "action_" and "filter_" is that from experience trying to use the convention 1.) it's easy to forget to include the prefix and 2.) it's ambiguous because I might write a function "filter_xxxx" intending to filter "xxx" and find out there is an action called "xxx", i.e. "filter_admin_menu."

I see it as a "magical" convention, which is what you were arguing against.

As I said, I'm not against magic, but I think it should be explicit.

Regarding prefixing with `action_` or `filter_`, what problems do you forsee regarding that?

However, you have some nuances regarding my opinion mis-stated. I think implicit is good for certain use-case such as for rapid prototyping for internally used method. But I think explicit is better for code you plan to publish and you suggest I'm only proposing implicit.

If you look at my examples you'll see it supports a "@wp-autohook explicit" for eliminating all "magic." When explicit is set then it requires the the methods have @wp-action or @wp-filter tags. What my main issue was with using naming prefixes for hooks like "action_init" and "filter_the_content"; I think that's a hack and can potentially cause problems.

So to clarify my opinion it is "If you want it explicit then use @wp-action or @wp-filter tags."