Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
I want to resurrect Dmitrys Attributes RFC that was rejected for 7.1 in
2016 with a few changes, incorporating feedback from the mailing list back
then and from talking to previous no voters.
The RFC is at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attributes_v2
Hi,
I have concerns about these two statements in the RFC:
> The name of an attribute is resolved against the currently active
namespace import scope during compilation. The resolved class names are
then autoloaded to make sure they exist.
> Consistent with PHP expressions in general, no validation is
performed if the provided attribute arguments are fullfilling the
contract of the attribute class constructor. This would happen only when
accessing attributes as objects in the Reflection API (below).
These two details are inconsistent with eachother: use of an annotation
triggers an autoload, yet we aren't using the class that is autoloaded
to validate it? This seems quite wasteful: if we have loaded the class,
we might as well use it to check the arguments are correct. Also, why
are we privileging the class existing over the arguments to the class
being correct? If the arguments can be validated at Reflection time,
surely the autoloading can be done then too? Both types of coding
mistake are important.
It also seems inconsistent with existing PHP behaviour, I think normally
mentioning a class either triggers an immediate autoload and actual
execution/validation (`new`) or it doesn't (a type declaration). This
proposal is a strange half-way house.
Is this being done to avoid paying the cost of creating the object at
compilation time? Because I think triggering the autoload is going to be
expensive anyway, possibly moreso.
On a different note, the wording here is syntactically ambiguous. It can
be read as both "if the provided attribute arguments are fullfilling the
contract […], then no validation is performed" and "no validation is
performed as to whether the provided attribute arguments are fullfilling
the contract". I read it as the former the first time, which confused me
for a moment.
Another thing:
> Thanks to class name resolving, IDEs or static analysis tools can
perform this validation for the developer.
Is this referencing the autoloading behaviour? I don't see why that
would be required. (You could also be referring to the fact you use
classes, which IDEs can look for, instead of arbitrary string
attributes, which IDEs can not, which does make sense.)
Thanks,
Andrea
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
