Re: Re: [VOTE] Attributes v2 RFC Vote is open
| From: | Peter Cowburn | Date: | Tue, 21 Apr 2020 08:17:13 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [VOTE] Attributes v2 RFC Vote is open | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-109742@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 22:36, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Andrea,
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 23:25 Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I have opened the vote on the Attributes v2 RFC. The voting will be
> open
> > > until two weeks from now, May 4th 2020, noon UTC.
> > >
> > > RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attributes_v2
I know that I'm "too late" to be making suggestions, but I would like to see
a new "@@" operator over the proposed <<...>> or @:.
While it is possible (!!) that some code is already using a double
@-operator
in a way that would conflict, I'd posit that it is a reasonable BC break in
return
for a subjectively nicer (for want of a better word) attribute operator.
Nikita and Sara shared similar grumblings in unofficial channels [1] [2].
However, there is something to be said for just deciding on *anything* and
rolling forward with it.
[1] https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/11/conversation/at-at-01
and https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/11/conversation/at-at-02
[2]
https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/g4psl5/rfc_attributes_vote_is_open_now/fnz97fk/
>
> > >
> > > Thank you everyone for taking part in the detailed discussion.
> > >
> > > greetings
> > > Benjamin
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for putting this to a vote. I remember I had some comments about
> > autoloading behaviour and you changed the behaviour in the RFC, but I
> > didn't get around to reading it again. I am concerned though that it
> > doesn't seem to say anymore when autoloading happens, if at all? Can
> > that be clarified?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andrea
> >
>
> From my review of the tests, autoloading occurs when an object is being
> requested (via
newInstance() call on a reflection attribute).
>
> Until then, the same semantics as the ::class pseudo-constant
> apply.
>
> >
>