On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 9:27 PM Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be> wrote:
> Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding I'd like to clarify that > the proposed check of this RFC is not a runtime error. It's a compile > time error, just like the check for incompatible method signatures > during inheritance. In fact it shares a non-trivial amount of the > existing logic of that check, because it's so similar. > > My understanding is that once the class is successfully sitting in > Opcache there will not be any further overhead. > I figured as much, I say runtime just to differentiate from compiled languages with a similar feature. Although OPcache is ubiquitous in production environments now, it's not obligated and the cache only lasts as long as the SAPI process. It's not overhead I think is the issue, anyway - at least not off adding "one more thing" at this stage, it's more the precedent of is there a sufficient benefit to adding this and potentially more features like it at the language-level. Merely delineating intent isn't something I feel warrants a change in the language, particularly when you'd need SAs and IDEs to implement it anyway for users to not be caught out with a fatal error at runtime (/compile time). Don't get me wrong; *delineating intent is a good thing*. I entirely get where you're coming from, however I'd refer back to my earlier comment: any attributes added in the engine should provide a tangible benefit which *can't be achieved in userland*. > I'll put the email back on unread and hope to > be able to give a more expanded and nuanced reply later. > Do this if you feel it's beneficial to the wider audience of internals to better understand the motivation and justification for your proposal, but ultimately it's not me you need to persuade so certainly don't worry about getting into further nuances on my account. I don't have any more feedback or thoughts for you until/unless the RFC changes, so I'll finish by saying for me, I'd either back Marco's suggestion of try it as a plugin for PHPStan first, or expand your proposal more along the lines of what Sara's suggested. Thanks. -Dave
