Hi internals,
One thing I hadn't thought of before was how this would interact with
parameters (with or without constructor property promotion).
Many coding styles would end up putting annotations on the same line for
parameters (in addition to closures)
E.g. I've commonly done that and seen that done in Java:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30237266/java-parameter-annotations
```
class X {
public function __construct(
@@MyImmutable public bool $x,
private bool $flag = false,
) {}
public function __construct(
@[MyImmutable] public bool $x,
private bool $flag = false,
) {}
// This comments out the first parameter entirely in php7, silently leading
to different behavior in php 7
public function __construct(
#[MyImmutable] public bool $x,
private bool $flag = false,
) {}
}
```
As Theodore said, this RFC doesn't include enough examples to give a
comprehensive understanding of how #[] would be implemented and what the
implementation implies, which the original shorter attribute syntax did
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax#alternative_syntax
(e.g. this gets parsed as `$f1 = $f2 = $object = new foo();` in php 7 and would
not warn with your patch (from the mailing list) in php8. No patch for #[Attr]
is linked in the RFC document.)
```
$f1 = #[ExampleAttribute] function () {};
$f2 = #[ExampleAttribute] fn() => 1;
$object = new #[ExampleAttribute] class () {};
foo();
```
Even if the RFC was amended after the vote was started,
I don't think that people who had already voted would see the changes or read
all of the numerous emails in this thread.
> Changes lexing of remaining tokens indicates that a newly introduced token
> changes the behaviour of existing tokens.
> In the example of `#[` the occurance of a # would have previously always
> signified a comment, but that now changes to become an attribute instead when
> followed by `[`.
That's similar to saying that the `??` token would have previously indicated a
`?` for a nullable type/ternary, but would change to become a null coalescing
operator when followed by `?`.
It understates/omits mentions of the changes to lexing this can cause, which I
mentioned in https://externals.io/message/111218#111239
```
?php
// This example echoes the rest of the source code in php 7
// and echoes "Test" in php 8.
#[DeprecationReason('reason: <https://some-website/reason?>')]
function main() {}
const APP_SECRET = 'app-secret';
echo "Test\n";
```
```
// yields false in php 7, yields a function in php 8
function generator() {
yield #[MyCustomAttribute('
false;
// ']function() {};
}
```
Regards,
- Tyson
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
