Re: [RFC] Attributes v2

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:04 PM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote: > > On Mar 10, 2020, at 7:53 AM, Aleksander Machniak <alec@alec.pl> wrote: > > > > On 10.03.2020 12:43, Mike Schinkel wrote: > >>>> Alternately, why not use this (which is probably the best option > IMO)?: > >>>> > >>>> function foo() attributes > >>>> SingleArgument("Hello"), > >>>> Another\SingleArgument("World"), > >>>> \My\Attributes\FewArguments("foo", "bar") {} > >>>> > >>> > >>> This particular example leads to complications with how different > keywords > >>> stack up; would the return statement come before the "attributes" > keyword? > >> > >> How does the return statement affect this example? The return > statement would be inside the braces, the attributes would be before the > braces. > > > > I think he meant return type declaration. That's why the question about > > the use clause is as well relevant. > > > If that is the case that makes a little more sense. > > But even so, the question is surprising because we have a well established > existing pattern with extends and implements clauses, for example: > > function foo():returntype > extends Parent > implements Interface1, Interface2, Interface2 > attributes Attribute1, Attribute2, Attribute3 {} > > Just to make sure you don't run in circles in this discussion thread here, even when syntax is not fixed yet, it's not going to be a syntax where the attributes are suffixed after the declaration. It would maybe some other characters like %[Attr]. > -Mike > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >