Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110289 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98783 invoked from network); 27 May 2020 23:25:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 27 May 2020 23:25:18 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 905681804C7 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:05:47 -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,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,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-lj1-f176.google.com (mail-lj1-f176.google.com [209.85.208.176]) (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 ; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f176.google.com with SMTP id w10so30934852ljo.0 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:05:46 -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=JA/vVhdP8UJUFwOjv0g7V7cxyASd7Sdrr3EdZshZPh8=; b=rcHPiw7BCmBYHNKv1ZmkIpgFXhaGXJ3ukQc96UnXLpvQudqyNTtAIIHyBBok2zukRt ycqriXpcUn4T9dJwFqUOkGOldrkVGo1SKMFJ38DMNgD2/NX7Y1+Mybh6t881gaFDcLi1 2Fld2iHI3FpkYBOmBeWAHh5XU/1Q+ER/+WCoo+IPXXkeVc4gJ9PpHNQUkUl15BuHJAr8 26u+ia2OBdWbB5FEmtMw5OmymyBbydgYoMlUA8jolYkG4H6CBkmRW1b3Rc0os66OrG5w +jrjh4ErXcUNY2edHsXXF8de1JFClBmYeEYEh+euSkgl7RyllCMQIwFO/gqHsJGBn0Mq hFqg== 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=JA/vVhdP8UJUFwOjv0g7V7cxyASd7Sdrr3EdZshZPh8=; b=DrWgo0l+d5ul7F4jjqhVTuzM+F54VWjRGulnkCQLcIwK/PYdax0eh5O3lLoHPH+B1C zvtNZn4MkTp/uYcOeLQ4RBKoclRgPaVmaHSkPg0Yj67iAah9yKWBVIfYmmpckFd3cUdE p3JJwwKhS4tH77c0IdBkxJWXUryoAXjfE4uBFTiuqhnwZWGQfIbDLRlYt5cOshE/FZTv CXEAgMMVg613ZUMbAewLlzD9BfyIaoMOtVSikNqdCmwFwAsXxi0szVjmCb9wmNioGCs6 dZijRLBBj+CInei1lVVWdk1GJNmzHjT/s63W3YuF+vSilbbwgh9FXuUuFqeHTkm3KT4B TVSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531C3qZu6MxUbfwZo1Ii9eLXQt/njTneye8ouqeoBJVxoI8YFN8O tE/rwp7xkEqgj86/HFWmcQCF28Fs8ggAdkdGPmFbFA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzx8lsOMpNSUmcY+bXkZcEoh3tq1abuvtYnK7EZNbqfjla0XykkybcK2xZNA6KtTyaShN4Ah95QSBdXSIye5q0= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0e6:: with SMTP id h6mr3587124ljl.178.1590617143252; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:05:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 01:05:30 +0300 Message-ID: To: Benjamin Eberlei Cc: PHP Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc191505a6a86909" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Amendments to Attributes From: benas.molis.iml@gmail.com (Benas IML) --000000000000cc191505a6a86909 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" It seems that the RFC was updated to use the `Attributes` namespace. I think this is a bad idea since we're reserving a generic namespace that we haven't even "soft" reserved. Also, the loss of fallback to global namespace is a turning point for me. Generally, I think we should instead do something like Rowan said: use namespaced classes only for implementations (e.g. `\Attribute` but `\PHP\Deprecated`). Best regards, Benas On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:08 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 < > 2. Rename PhpAttribute to Attribute in global namespace (independent of the > namespace RFC) > 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. > > Each of them is a rather small issue, so I hope its ok to aggregate all > four of them in a single RFC. Please let me know if it's not. > > greetings > Benjamin > --000000000000cc191505a6a86909--