It seems that the RFC was updated to use the `Attributes` namespace. I think this is a bad idea since we're reserving a generic namespace that we haven't even "soft" reserved. Also, the loss of fallback to global namespace is a turning point for me.
Generally, I think we should instead do something like Rowan said: use namespaced classes only for implementations (e.g. `\Attribute` but `\PHP\Deprecated`). Best regards, Benas On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:08 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) > 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 >
