Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114197
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <V7C5-r6tzKmxjhPnvy9gtfdMtxkj0z_PJphaehaqcPsOLX0pEKtGU4A8EuSKyS-cbZl5HPVA2ejXCuXXOfOksH9VACGOKT3awRsr9aSNIg8=@protonmail.com>
 <5b9f1500-615a-48f1-815f-1d48b327ef90@processus.org>
 <CAEPJdun9jhST-L7CPHSJZtg3Q9rFEy7aFXU0Y7NCv_cPMHrVEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuT-yup+ghAAw5EmbX9Lqmj+B_WEVm029jwen16MkY=pAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7fc2ae67-f99e-30b8-64e5-12092408ec9f@processus.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:35:44 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuT-yup+ghAAw5EmbX9Lqmj+B_WEVm029jwen16MkY=pAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Sealed Classes
From: pierre-php@processus.org (Pierre)

Le 27/04/2021 à 15:21, Dan Ackroyd a écrit :
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 15:03, Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de> wrote:
>> There is a much less invasive way to add new keywords/flags
>> to functions by using attributes.
>>
>> Imho this decouples new features from the language and reduces the "risk"
>> of adding them to the language.
> I think I disagree with this very strongly, and plan* to vote against
> any RFC that embeds another language in annotations.**
>
> It might be quicker, easier, and more seductive to implement language
> level features in them, but it is a massive trade-off in making code
> hard to reason about.
>
>> That should increase the likeliness of it
>> getting accepted in my opinion.
> This can also be pronounced as "makes it more likely to slip bad ideas
> in core without thinking them through fully".
>
> My experience of annotations being used as an embedded language is
> Java, and it's one of the reasons why I no longer use that language.
>
> Not only is code with many lines of annotations hard to read, it
> results in behaviour that is very hard to reason about. I literally
> spent 40 hours (spread over the course of 5 weeks), trying to figure
> out this bug https://stackoverflow.com/q/9072749/778719 . If my
> colleague hadn't been able to tell me the answer, the only way I could
> have debugged the problem myself is using a bytecode level debugger,
> to step through the internal details of what was happening.
>
> I'd prefer it if we didn't repeat (what I consider to be) the mistakes of Java.
>
> cheers
> Dan
> Ack

Hello,

Yes, after reading a few answers I changed my mind and I do agree with 
you know, this is a language feature and should be in the language 
syntax and not in attributes.

Regards,

--

Pierre