Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108917 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45361 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2020 20:56:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2020 20:56:12 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4D11804D8 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:16:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-ua1-f50.google.com (mail-ua1-f50.google.com [209.85.222.50]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua1-f50.google.com with SMTP id p2so3742538uao.9 for ; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:16:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Qk0to5beR73fyJgMaLaADQ2gLFJJ0Kiz0kB7naC1uwM=; b=u7bL1oczm6ZtfP/05HU4DMvgzOCe1bpZPPa+P6/HNKumE/+QQ3tbrnm4uyo6EL5VJH iNcVNwqLQ2Ed3FFPbNu/lXTWpmR7tWXKd6tZTcF1ccIG/8hS865j/5B7TljScP3Cj3Pv nJaEJ0gshmnX6GkyYXJz66tpdbi74xgUZvgZlhwI3FtweWXVulS16Ogl1M5y+QkMwHuC /rYy8tJ/t21nLbjhaADFHSR1UPYWP5YlJmyzatgw9amPNsG/Om9XD+ws6yK1icmtui5G DuMO0FSMwSrrW9q2Pi2SvoJxwOxCtl+pXchGaU//CSa6D9FvSSYcXQAJmoeEmH37AIRL 2PDw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Qk0to5beR73fyJgMaLaADQ2gLFJJ0Kiz0kB7naC1uwM=; b=kUiqCXJWysZ7VGpvP26LPrRqraSZS1F/E4qY5Zg59eWws8R+cVc/p8VX4fc6fh8dDB mO8A1SVzJV39ZwSxoKe36WzTWEHwgAiKngy/3826mJE0iaeWV0Qhk9Mu8IulfIboHwYn xe3PEutYl6/6hooN4xg+M+UFKma3mm/1QB97rhCJ3tuohIKL2FjDUHAw32u0s7undhXr 4w5VCpb63ks/MfmBvKLKzIrcGdbIhXiaaeBJxQIPe1tlNOUliwIfKPG/BaQYggzEyHnC C/6tjBhoRVtDTHeZzrmZn4Ie9jqnVIQ/0NmMiyTHFUWPxDaHrVgTsCsNeoXIK8UiWKYT kARw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3NGy4MnZO0EcX510nCxuusWNcEwNpeaXy9ByRJ04SY+OPqSWUU /HXU8kYNzoADe5cNU+aOBFq0v+nDgVCKqR1iydbz87Ie X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuq8CYhp248BbQvPirXIpN+nYfLHIkk80ec8aqj5i1GHRUwPBwqJY4JpdzaGzZc6ucxXoRil9HsadBM0gug1no= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:7802:: with SMTP id x2mr10059663uaq.100.1583781412217; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:16:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:16:41 -0400 Message-ID: To: Benjamin Eberlei Cc: PHP Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007a25d705a070d85d" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Attributes v2 From: matthewmatthew@gmail.com (Matthew Brown) --0000000000007a25d705a070d85d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" For information that's needed at runtime (as opposed to documentation or static analysis) docblocks have an obvious overh I think the syntax here looks great, and I think this would be an exciting addition to the language. I want to build things with it! On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 10:43, Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > Hi all, > > I want to resurrect Dmitrys Attributes RFC that was rejected for 7.1 in > 2016 with a few changes, incorporating feedback from the mailing list back > then and from talking to previous no voters. > > The RFC is at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attributes_v2 > > A working patch is at https://github.com/beberlei/php-src/pull/2 though > work around the details is still necessary. > > The RFC contains a section with common criticism and objections to > attributes, and I hope to have collected and responded to a good amount > already from previous discussions. > > There is also a fair amount of implementation detail still up for debate, > which is noted in "Open Issues". I have pre-committed to one approach, but > listed alternatives there. On these issues I am looking for your feedback. > > greetings > Benjamin > --0000000000007a25d705a070d85d--