On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:54 PM Benas IML <benas.molis....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the update! Given that there is still an open issue, is the > RFC proposing flags or a separate `<<Repeatable>>` attribute? > Good point, we came to the conclusion to simplify. Should attributes be in the global namespace, then we shouldn't arbitrarily add more, so it will be a flag. At that point, because you rarely declare new flags we decided to merge target and flags and only have one flag. You could do the following: <<PhpAttribute(self::TARGET_METHOD | self::IS_REPEATABLE)>> > > 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 >> > >> >
