Hi On 5/17/24 17:02, Larry Garfield wrote:
Why is the attribute not allowed on classes? I think it would make sense on every language structure, unrestricted. (Including classes, parameters, everything.)
There is not pre-existing semantics of deprecating a class from the engine PoV.
The only things that can be deprecated on the engine level as of now are Functions, Methods, Class Constants (incl. Enum Cases), and regular Constants (those do not support attributes).
Allowing to apply the attribute on classes is therefore left to future scope (as mentioned in the “Future Scope” section of the RFC). Adjusting the attribute to also apply to classes once the semantics are decided should be straight-forward and thus be an implicit part of the process of supporting the deprecation of classes.
The user-space definition of the attribute is invalid in the example: It declares properties AND promoted constructor args. That can/should be combined.
I don’t follow. Do you mean the top-most codeblock in the RFC? It does not use constructor property promotion.
It’s the stub, intentionally omitting the method body. I’ve added a placeholder comment in the constructor body to make that clearer.
Best regards Tim Düsterhus
