Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123335
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-456-gcd147058c-fm-hotfix-20240509.001-g0aad06e4
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <45067348-cc06-431f-a249-d5aa38125000@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <02b00330-1c34-4f3e-a167-0c0c4cc78ac7@bastelstu.be>
References: 
 <CAEPJdumvJNQ+JZ3wkLP-Q2O0y57g=W_hHFkuvOKMVJqqraKCzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEPJdunbcKzcU1X34tj5gseahR4ubfSiL6S1wBp1xQv1i6ULqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8432541c-ad13-4682-9034-bcfe47e142ff@app.fastmail.com>
 <02b00330-1c34-4f3e-a167-0c0c4cc78ac7@bastelstu.be>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 16:45:29 +0000
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Discussion] #[\Deprecated] attribute again v1.3
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Fri, May 17, 2024, at 3:49 PM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 5/17/24 17:02, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> Why is the attribute not allowed on classes?  I think it would make s=
ense on every language structure, unrestricted.  (Including classes, par=
ameters, everything.)
>
> There is not pre-existing semantics of deprecating a class from the=20
> engine PoV.
>
> The only things that can be deprecated on the engine level as of now a=
re=20
> Functions, Methods, Class Constants (incl. Enum Cases), and regular=20
> Constants (those do not support attributes).
>
> Allowing to apply the attribute on classes is therefore left to future=20
> scope (as mentioned in the =E2=80=9CFuture Scope=E2=80=9D section of t=
he RFC). Adjusting=20
> the attribute to also apply to classes once the semantics are decided=20
> should be straight-forward and thus be an implicit part of the process=20
> of supporting the deprecation of classes.

This would be helpful to include explicitly in the RFC, toward the top, =
because it's the first thing that came to mind when I saw the initial co=
de block.

>> The user-space definition of the attribute is invalid in the example:=
 It declares properties AND promoted constructor args.  That can/should =
be combined.
>
> I don=E2=80=99t follow. Do you mean the top-most codeblock in the RFC?=
 It does=20
> not use constructor property promotion.
>
> It=E2=80=99s the stub, intentionally omitting the method body. I=E2=80=
=99ve added a=20
> placeholder comment in the constructor body to make that clearer.

Ah, I misread it.  You are correct, it's valid.  It's so rare I see a na=
me in both the constructor and as a property these days. :-)

--Larry Garfield