On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:08 PM Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de> wrote:
> Hi everyone, > > the Attributes RFC was rather large already, so a few things were left open > or discussions during the vote have made us rethink a things. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attribute_amendments > > These points are handled by the Amendments RFC to Attributes: > > 1. Proposing to add a grouped syntax <<Attr1, Attr2> 2. Rename PhpAttribute to Attribute in global namespace (independent of the > namespace RFC) > As was mentioned in one of the previous discussions, we expect that PHP is going to ship more language-provided attributes in the future. With this proposal we have the "Attribute" attribute, but I expect we'll at least have "Deprecated" as well, and probably also something along the lines of "Jit" or "NoJit". While I'm happy with "Attribute" living in the global namespace, I don't really think we'd want to introduce "Jit" as a class in the global namespace. The name is simply to generic and does not indicate that this is part of the attribute system. We'd be forced to go with things like DeprecatedAttribute or JitAttribute, which seems rather non-optimal to me, as we're just reinventing namespaces to avoid using them... As such, I would suggest to introduce a common namespace for all attributes provided by PHP. This means we'd have Attributes\Attribute, Attributes\Deprecated, Attributes\Jit, Attributes\NoJit etc. (I'm also okay with the PHP\Attributes\Deprecated variant, but that's a separate question). Nikita 3. Add validation of attribute class targets, which internal attributes can > do, but userland can't > 4. Specification if an attribute is repeatable or not on the same > declaration and fail otherwise. > > Each of them is a rather small issue, so I hope its ok to aggregate all > four of them in a single RFC. Please let me know if it's not. > > greetings > Benjamin >
