Re: [RFC] Amendments to Attributes

That's a brilliant idea, completely agreed, Rowan! On the other note, don't want to nitpick here but I believe that it would be better to name the repeatable attribute simply as <<Repeatable>>. It would match other languages (such as Java) and the naming wouldn't be that verbose. Also IMO, I think for consistency we should either use only parameters e. g. <<Attribute(Attribute::TARGET_ALL, Attribute::REPEATABLE)>> or separate attributes for both target validation and repeatability e. g. <<Target(Target::ALL)>> and <<Repeatable>>. Best regards, Benas Seliuginas