Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120867
Feedback-ID: i835c46d5:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-592-ga9d4a09b4b-fm-defalarms-20230725.001-ga9d4a09b
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <de2f8c28-1684-4ade-8ad9-fd53295b8f64@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <91d45d72-5cc1-4fa4-bf50-cdf645a2e2af@app.fastmail.com>
References: <19f70187-09d5-4f60-ba01-265f2e97f7cc@app.fastmail.com>
 <91d45d72-5cc1-4fa4-bf50-cdf645a2e2af@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 22:33:20 +0100
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Larsson?= <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=77817208f2434a48829fddb9e3e29839
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New reflection methods for working with attributes
From: php@ollie.codes ("Ollie Read")

--77817208f2434a48829fddb9e3e29839
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> I'm not opposed to these, but would this be a good time to also add an=
 interface for attributable reflection objects, so that we can type agai=
nst that?  These methods would all then go on that interface.

I was going for a tiered approach. Once these methods were in, I would p=
ropose adding an Attributable or ReflectorWithAttributes interface, as w=
ell as a separate proposal to have ReflectionAttribute aware of the Attr=
ibutable/ReflectionWithAttributes that it came from.

> What's the difference between this and what was proposed in
> https://externals.io/message/120799 ?=20

My proposal adds 3 methods, not just one, and was a followup to somethin=
g from a while ago.

> I don't get why this wouldn't require an RFC.

It's adding missing methods that should realistically be there. It break=
s nothing, nor does it introduce entirely brand new things. It's the sam=
e as getParameter()/hasParameter() <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/=
10431> and hasPrototype() <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/8487>. I =
couldn't tell you exactly why, just that the core contributors said so.

> FY  I started working on the implementation., hopefully it will bring =
more arguments in favor of that RFC which I=E2=80=99m willing to submit =
asap as well.

Is it just the hasAttribute() method you're working on? I'm happy to hel=
p out if you need/want it. I was moments away from opening a PR.

---
Best Regards,
*Ollie Read*

--77817208f2434a48829fddb9e3e29839--