Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110219 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 91945 invoked from network); 20 May 2020 19:02:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 20 May 2020 19:02:36 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B73BC1804C4 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 10:41:20 -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=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS11403 64.147.123.0/24 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 10:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B8F150F for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 13:41:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap26 ([10.202.2.76]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 20 May 2020 13:41:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=HZpOZK MxLemCtp+XoyzN2zsT2iOHtHUQjUd7dVHKT20=; b=CUAZ6v+qi222I8UUsUXXPa SRpmZG/SRzIv/JmAV6sVJ2P/e0NgrFX4Zeq/3Gja/5T45wGivgVo0KQhI7DT1ptZ 7iyAQx40YvDB+E9P9SsRW+Ibhxvy5NmgRUssROnPQgKlQOEdBPEVjV7DWCt7QUc9 1nlgHiMjfuSPzW+buvYVeUYTnGLhY4NWk1MXuPWj7zvyc5y2iPA8k8TRZL4NE4t/ TM0b8X2WT/vUgAfy10f9Hzd6zNYPlLeUSdow1crnUND4qpKq2srvBe751RnR9lJr yU8M02PzNhEJ7G1RQeJPWQGr/K0Z0saa0BIn1NWl8XukzcHCszv+pn51JUVOdWTQ == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedruddtledguddufecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttdertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfnfgr rhhrhicuifgrrhhfihgvlhgufdcuoehlrghrrhihsehgrghrfhhivghlughtvggthhdrtg homheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveehhedvveejledvvefgleevffdtjeekledvkeeg heffgfeivdejhffhledtudetnecuffhomhgrihhnpehphhhprdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsth gvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgrrhhrhiesghgrrhhf ihgvlhguthgvtghhrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0832B14200A2; Wed, 20 May 2020 13:41:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-464-g810d66a-fmstable-20200518v1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 12:40:57 -0500 To: "php internals" Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Amendments to Attributes From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield") On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 12:07 PM, Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > Hi everyone, > > the Attributes RFC was rather large already, so a few things were left open > or discussions during the vote have made us rethink a things. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attribute_amendments > > These points are handled by the Amendments RFC to Attributes: > > 1. Proposing to add a grouped syntax < I'm torn here. I can absolutely see the use cases for it, but it also is a can of worms in terms of many different coding styles. In short, this is going to make more work for FIG to sort out. > 2. Rename PhpAttribute to Attribute in global namespace (independent of the > namespace RFC) I don't feel strongly enough in any direction to bother wading into this... :-) > 3. Add validation of attribute class targets, which internal attributes can > do, but userland can't > 4. Specification if an attribute is repeatable or not on the same > declaration and fail otherwise. It's not clear from the RFC what the failure mode is. If I put an attribute in the wrong place, or repeat it when I shouldn't... at what point does the code blow up and how? Does it get silently skipped somewhere? Is there an exception? Is it purely informational for the user processing it? The RFC needs to be clearer on what happens when validation fails. Even if that's repeating something from the original RFC, it needs to be clarified here so that we know what we're talking about. --Larry Garfield