Re: [RFC] Attributes v2

> > On Mar 10, 2020 at 3:49 PM, <Benjamin Eberlei (mailto:kontakt@beberlei.de)> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 5:30 PM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net > (mailto:mike@newclarity.net)> wrote: > > > > On Mar 10, 2020, at 11:28 AM, Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de > > > (mailto:kontakt@beberlei.de)> wrote: > > > > > > 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]. > > > > > > > It is your RFC so you are the arbiter. > > > > One final on syntax: Can I suggest you consider @:Attr? > > > > -Mike > > P. S. Did you see the question on interfaces? > > > > > > No I missed it. Attributes work on interfaces, but they are not inherited to parent classes. > This is similar to how a class implementing an interface may have different docblocks. You can use > the reflection api to get to interfaces from a class and check for their attributes there. For > traits the attributes get copied into the using class. > > > > I think you may have misunderstood my question. I was asking if using an interface we could *require* a class to implement specific attributes. If yes that would be extremely valuable. -Mike