Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110365
Return-Path: <benas.molis.iml@gmail.com>
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 92717 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2020 12:11:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5)
  by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 4 Jun 2020 12:11:49 -0000
Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DE81804E4
	for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu,  4 Jun 2020 03:54:14 -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: <benas.molis.iml@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lf1-f53.google.com (mail-lf1-f53.google.com [209.85.167.53])
	(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 <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu,  4 Jun 2020 03:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 82so3303338lfh.2
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 03:54:13 -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=0NbZF9pIi500PsVjCRYvTVTl6Rr8vE05f9zUAHxsNL0=;
        b=EowdbI3phtPtre5B9EQ0te5KI52VEdg8FhW+2nf4KgkDB9UjHQai1Bkjn3wlffkglX
         /4GFCHcnMZVt3gP1AcuA22PSDaZ1+QEMuZjGU36yfCXn69czn+Y0O0ugdkzDacATdmrL
         pMsZ0byp/mvq0ELckqzlb9DMyZKT4+pFHYtFxuTtWV4iRmFWqX7jaSN77qVVpv3+u7k8
         EFOO/OMKUinfr3HfwcmfIg7de/UHj1mBzOSrthVFOW3XKFIAJxwh5cq/9Yt0uC9CI3Fw
         l84nnoFYsazldtyibjBs9+F2Nsk6gk0Hv0XytPqrd1cWqB6MtGuZ+3mj2FGoLpjW36+A
         IHuw==
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=0NbZF9pIi500PsVjCRYvTVTl6Rr8vE05f9zUAHxsNL0=;
        b=Po3IUFW9fSWrT+kv57QRRJS6VC+fExwBKHoX4k2QkRL2SxU3lIJ7OS5nEEvG4U0YDm
         SZciYz57jUvRDX994XJaZDXVrCAI+gSR1nYdwaPlM4cpZq/kdTHYyr9kljZPEP5NAp08
         5y3DUOxTJ5iVm4IXtgPxkPo4DlXq1FcutImPpJxLiD5cb1y+wAA6J1ylkXHOzeioI4zY
         jp0iM3eWLJGLRKde3wjAc0NYzut2qBTh8JoUrZKkcZGn5LJvR3z9yo22JxlR3oQtJYLz
         322gy5mEinmlC1rAhV6yaeI+6j2gNrGPaSRebcMNcnPNM2zbdNtf3OmEfoVUyAyhcOMd
         zDsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533PT6Kc2mlSp53yNpJtYXmVBelUu8t/vG3i9Vo14eL37U4EiHEQ
	OdoMlPrKD7U414Sb5QvYCpUvrpM6b+K1CGUNKKVzyg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyy/QElTtmGokLl9jVE7Drnlv46OHRTvJFw2Bg6yJJVhQn7Tip4bXqdCYXUEhhmUm/zK/7iM5/Y4Eckl7nvxcM=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:3f01:: with SMTP id m1mr2204756lfa.130.1591268051597;
 Thu, 04 Jun 2020 03:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEPJdum6xCwABjpor1YYvuosSB1dEb4xnCZEMABKsEEvNXvcQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEPJdukfeRs2H8+qsXpHZgTeEaZnvDYXUtCGOhTu1ZZDBwehHA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJdukfeRs2H8+qsXpHZgTeEaZnvDYXUtCGOhTu1ZZDBwehHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 13:53:59 +0300
Message-ID: <CANeKSiQK6mGwCANDB=O8JsLieC8JM1uGeuRoguTQPDBgqO553g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f53c8905a73ff650"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Amendments to Attributes
From: benas.molis.iml@gmail.com (Benas IML)

--000000000000f53c8905a73ff650
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Thank you for the update! Given that there is still an open issue, is the
RFC proposing flags or a separate `<<Repeatable>>` attribute?

Best regards,
Benas

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020, 12:29 PM Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de> wrote:

> I have changed back the rename from namespacing to Attributes\Attribute to
> using just Attribute after a few discussions off list. The reasoning is
> that it becomes more clear that a majority of core contributors strongly
> prefers using the global namespace as the PHP namespace and opening up this
> point again makes no sense. So the state of the RFC is again what it was
> when I originally posted it with renaming PhpAttribute to Attribute.
>
> Unless there is some new significant feedback I am going to open up this
> RFC for voting on Monday next week.
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:07 PM Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>
> 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 <<Attr1, Attr2>
> > 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
> >
>

--000000000000f53c8905a73ff650--