Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110053 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 52114 invoked from network); 7 May 2020 00:05:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (76.75.200.58) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 7 May 2020 00:05:22 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 00:40:39 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 46.59.72.204 Subject: Re: [RFC] Constructor Property Promotion From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) Message-ID: Hi Nikita, Nikita Popov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 2:30 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > > I think the best answer to this question may be to forbid the use of > attributes on promoted properties entirely, because there is no unambiguous > interpretation for them. I also think that using attributes pushes this > "syntax sugar" to its limit, as you can easily end up with a 50 line > constructor signature that way, at least if I'm going by some of the more > involved uses of annotations... I think that is a great starting point because it is a safe decision: if we later decide there is a better behaviour, we can change it without causing any problems for existing code. So, if we don't come up with a better idea, I would strongly recommend that one. I also agree with your other thoughts on it. :) Thanks, Andrea