On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 6:21 PM Aaron Piotrowski <aa...@trowski.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 28, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Benas IML <benas.molis....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey internals,
> >
> > Since it's safe to say that the Attributes v2 RFC has passed, I wanted to
> > make a separate thread based on the comment by Rowan Tommins in the PHP
> > namespace policy thread. This is a quote from his comment:
> >
> >> One prefix doesn't make a trend. "PhpToken" is a different case - it's a
> >> token of PHP source code, so the prefix isn't anything to do with
> >> avoiding name collisions, it's a natural clarification.
> >>
> >> To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy with the attributes RFC using the
> >> class name "Attribute", just as we use "Iterator", "Closure",
> >> "Exception", etc, etc. At which point the whole thing's a non-issue.
> >
> > I do strongly agree with him and I believe we should rename
> `\PhpAttribute`
> > to simply `\Attribute` before the PHP 8 release in order to improve
> > consistency with other classes and interfaces e. g. Iterator,
> ArrayAccess,
> > Countable. It would also make the attribute class definition look more
> > aesthetically pleasing:
> >
> > ```
> > <?php
> > <<Attribute>>
> > class Test {}
> > ```
> >
> > I am ready to make an RFC for this if the replies are mostly positive, so
> > please, express your opinions!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Benas Seliuginas
> > P.S: this is my second email account so hopefully it won't get marked as
> > spam.
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
>
>
> I too strongly agree that attributes should use `Attribute` over
> `PhpAttribute` or even `PHP\Attribute`.
>
> Namespaces for bundled classes probably should be used in the future, but
> for logically grouped classes (such as DOM), extensions, etc.
>
> Attributes are a basic language feature, and therefore should live in the
> global namespace the same way as Throwable, Iterator, Countable, etc.
>
> I did not want naming to be a blocker on the attributes RFC, but it
> certainly bothered me that it was not `<<Attribute>>`.
>
+1
Nikita
