Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:112017
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAF+90c8w3Aw9gbdFYV+Qm7Gyo0187GUMS2PmuUzVkW78JQ_Q_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVqMwPmwswUyuyP32AP0oAeXGwF-ayCeh5HOKim+24M23A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <33f82702-6126-fa36-48d6-71487cae1b72@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 18:20:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVqMwPmwswUyuyP32AP0oAeXGwF-ayCeh5HOKim+24M23A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Attributes and constructor property promotion
From: a.leathley@gmx.net (Andreas Leathley)

On 06.10.20 17:15, Sara Golemon wrote:
> My opinion on constructor property promotion (CPP) is that it's somethin=
g
> for small value object classes and should probably be regarded as
> code-smell on larger classes. At the same time, annotations belong with
> more complex objects and not so much with small "struct-like" classes.
>
> Given that position, I think we should err towards strictness in how
> attributes are applied to CPP declarations.  That is, we should require
> them to be meaningfully applicable to both arguments and properties in
> order to be used in a CPP context.  If that's a problem for the consumer=
,
> then they should avoid use of CPP.
>
> -Sara

The current usage of annotations is quite often with small struct-like
classes though - I mainly use annotations (and will use attributes) for
data that needs to be validated, or entity-like classes that contain
data. Those classes are small and simple and would benefit greatly from
CPP and attributes used in combination, so it would be a pity to make
that impossible.

 From my understanding suppressing the validation errors in this
particular case would be a good solution, or are there any serious
downsides to that?