As I am not a good expert on parser (not to say that I don't do anything), could you tell me if I can write a note like that?
<<[space]Annotation()[space]>> << MyAnnotation(1, 2, 3) >> It's just because I think the code is more "breathable". Until the PSR staff decides how best to write. Atenciosamente, David Rodrigues Em seg., 9 de mar. de 2020 às 16:19, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> escreveu: > 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 > >
