Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128235
Feedback-ID: ifab94697:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 09:55:30 +0200
To: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <e990522e-cad9-4971-af31-c8e08274e832@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALaXqqTW-r+XoJhcxAp0QEg0c1=azGormzdMfCeOUH=Y2Ga6yA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALaXqqTW-r+XoJhcxAp0QEg0c1=azGormzdMfCeOUH=Y2Ga6yA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Validating #[\Attribute] targets
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=94ee00059e8c48438503844c163ac875
From: rob@bottled.codes ("Rob Landers")

--94ee00059e8c48438503844c163ac875
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Fri, Jul 25, 2025, at 18:33, Daniel Scherzer wrote:
> Hi internals,
>=20
> The #[\Attribute] attribute is used to mark classes as being usable as=
 attributes. It currently does not trigger any error if added to a trait=
, interface, enum, or abstract class. However, if any of those *were* us=
ed as an attribute, calling ReflectionAttribute::newInstance() would fai=
l; if you are not going to call ReflectionAttribute::newInstance(), then=
 you don't really need to mark the trait/interface/enum/abstract class a=
s an attribute.
>=20
> I have proposed https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/19154 to add valid=
ation to the #[Attribute] attribute, and it was suggested that I post he=
re on the mailing list in case there were any objections. So, are there?
>=20
> -Daniel

Since \Attribute itself is an attribute, I wouldn=E2=80=99t expect it to=
 be validated until newInstance is called. In fact, if I remember correc=
tly from the original discussion, this was done deliberately so it would=
 be forward compatible. Further, by making it compile-time validated, I =
would be misled to think my own attributes would be validated at compile=
 time (which I think is a better solution than hodgepodging our way ther=
e).=20

=E2=80=94 Rob
--94ee00059e8c48438503844c163ac875
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title></head><body><div><br></div><d=
iv><br></div><div>On Fri, Jul 25, 2025, at 18:33, Daniel Scherzer wrote:=
</div><blockquote type=3D"cite" id=3D"qt" style=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr"><d=
iv>Hi internals,</div><div><br></div><div>The #[\Attribute] attribute is=
 used to mark classes as being usable as attributes. It currently does n=
ot trigger any error if added to a trait, interface, enum, or abstract c=
lass. However, if any of those *were* used as an attribute, calling Refl=
ectionAttribute::newInstance() would fail; if you are not going to call =
ReflectionAttribute::newInstance(), then you don't really need to mark t=
he trait/interface/enum/abstract class as an attribute.</div><div><br></=
div><div>I have proposed&nbsp;<a href=3D"https://github.com/php/php-src/=
pull/19154">https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/19154</a> to add validat=
ion to the #[Attribute] attribute, and it was suggested that I post here=
 on the mailing list in case there were any objections. So, are there?</=
div><div><br></div><div>-Daniel<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></d=
iv><div>Since \Attribute itself is an attribute, I wouldn=E2=80=99t expe=
ct it to be validated until newInstance is called. In fact, if I remembe=
r correctly from the original discussion, this was done deliberately so =
it would be forward compatible. Further, by making it compile-time valid=
ated, I would be misled to think my own attributes would be validated at=
 compile time (which I think is a better solution than hodgepodging our =
way there).&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div id=3D"sig121229152">=E2=80=94=
 Rob</div></body></html>
--94ee00059e8c48438503844c163ac875--