Thank you for the update! Given that there is still an open issue, is the RFC proposing flags or a separate `<<Repeatable>>` attribute?
Best regards, Benas On Thu, Jun 4, 2020, 12:29 PM Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de> wrote: > I have changed back the rename from namespacing to Attributes\Attribute to > using just Attribute after a few discussions off list. The reasoning is > that it becomes more clear that a majority of core contributors strongly > prefers using the global namespace as the PHP namespace and opening up this > point again makes no sense. So the state of the RFC is again what it was > when I originally posted it with renaming PhpAttribute to Attribute. > > Unless there is some new significant feedback I am going to open up this > RFC for voting on Monday next week. > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:07 PM Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de> > wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > the Attributes RFC was rather large already, so a few things were left > > open or discussions during the vote have made us rethink a things. > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attribute_amendments > > > > These points are handled by the Amendments RFC to Attributes: > > > > 1. Proposing to add a grouped syntax <<Attr1, Attr2> > > 2. Rename PhpAttribute to Attribute in global namespace (independent of > > the namespace RFC) > > 3. Add validation of attribute class targets, which internal attributes > > can do, but userland can't > > 4. Specification if an attribute is repeatable or not on the same > > declaration and fail otherwise. > > > > Each of them is a rather small issue, so I hope its ok to aggregate all > > four of them in a single RFC. Please let me know if it's not. > > > > greetings > > Benjamin > > >
