Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110660
To: Mark Randall <marandall@php.net>, "internals@lists.php.net"
	<internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax
Thread-Index: AQHWRQKQbvf9bxvtNUSOWe9X3tRkaKjeYgYAgAAUHXA=
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:53:23 +0000
Message-ID:
 <BYAPR05MB65354F6282785F8D7CF593BCDE9B0@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References:
 <BYAPR05MB653530A9965A3D47DA394693DE9A0@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>,<506d9d2a-1c24-4de1-b485-1a7bfd6bb4e3@VI1EUR04FT006.eop-eur04.prod.protection.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To:
 <506d9d2a-1c24-4de1-b485-1a7bfd6bb4e3@VI1EUR04FT006.eop-eur04.prod.protection.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [eSoNpmqwxsdQAWS0MFS+UiH3duf5uWba]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 44
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a638da05-f2e5-4e7a-6696-08d8139759b2
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MW2NAM12HT074:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:
 c/UAF+hQh4Vp4Um27VIkalhkUl04ADK08uV0FQZ44MWFdp5LMXpOnkYtD/k4tdR3HG05Hy0G8g1fyNBn9mhr5RY89VCfP6LK1/oEEGqlHfNuygh+LNWnSvFUgWTeqU/MLga/atCcpq1sSwuKnlQ7JRKEonqGg2q20MUHX3A0/DIW1kO80ZeJQJjpTT3MhtKYRyg80382L7Ga5nvB9X1ccD4oo79qF4mIGozkLF+7NFStBUdN3tZ6I3kojj0XaMqA
x-forefront-antispam-report:
 CIP:255.255.255.255;CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:0;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE;SFTY:;SFS:;DIR:OUT;SFP:1901;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata:
 eFsg065hHNSUQeAIpeKIeTxXfDK+bsYOzXWSdZkULtcFf9pXXS5O/i0KbMnfjZ9B+Zbcs7rTT4Po+m9yC7SODjUOSOeUi80oCl7LX7ur4Z7LnxkaIXIthVJ2h1ADquq3bP3ZDuaUqi/JdcuzHfUmog==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a638da05-f2e5-4e7a-6696-08d8139759b2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Jun 2020 14:53:23.8368
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MW2NAM12HT074
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax
From: theodorejb@outlook.com (Theodore Brown)

On Thu, June 18, 2020 at 8:40 AM Mark Randall wrote:=0A=
=0A=
> On 18/06/2020 00:59, Theodore Brown wrote:=0A=
> > I've opened voting on the Shorter Attribute Syntax RFC:=0A=
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax=0A=
> =0A=
> I'd be wary of @@ simply because if we do add validation to them,=0A=
> we would likely want to use the suppression operator to indicate=0A=
> that a class might be omitted (such as if an optional package is=0A=
> not installed).=0A=
> =0A=
> At which point we're left with @@@ and that's getting into silly-land.=0A=
=0A=
Hi Mark,=0A=
=0A=
Attributes were already designed to be optional, though, so there's=0A=
no need to suppress anything. Attribute validation occurs when you=0A=
call `ReflectionAttribute::newInstance()`.=0A=
=0A=
Or are you suggesting that we reverse the way this works, and always=0A=
validate attributes unless a suppression operator is used? I'm not=0A=
convinced this is a good idea - it would require adding a suppression=0A=
operator for all the use cases where attribute information is=0A=
collected without an attribute class, which changes something that=0A=
should be an internal implementation detail to require different=0A=
syntax for end-users of a library. Also, it could be confusing if the=0A=
suppression operator only prevents autoloading, but doesn't suppress=0A=
other warnings. And if it does suppress other warnings, that would=0A=
probably not be what developers want in most cases.=0A=
=0A=
Lastly, in my personal opinion combining the suppression operator=0A=
with attribute declarations looks like even worse symbol soup with=0A=
with the other syntax options. :)=0A=
=0A=
Best regards,=0A=
Theodore=0A=