> On Jul 17, 2021, at 1:40 AM, Eugene Sidelnyk <zsidel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Having a "readonly" class where the properties are read-only by default > > makes sense to me, but maybe the better way to do it is with an attribute? > > We already have such an attribute provided. It is called > [`#[Immutable]`](https://blog.jetbrains.com/phpstorm/2020/10/phpstorm-2020-3-eap-4/#immutable > > <https://blog.jetbrains.com/phpstorm/2020/10/phpstorm-2020-3-eap-4/#immutable>).
Actually, you are confusing PhpStorm's inclusion of PhpStorm-specific userland attributes where the PhpStorm team are probably trying to drive defacto-standard meanings for those attributes they documents with attributes that has specific meanings and behavior recognized by PHP itself. Nothing against PhpStorm β it is my IDE/editor of choice and I applaud JetBrain's leadership in this area β but their attributes are still just their attributes, not attributes defined by in a PHP RFC. > If the intention is to add some logic for attributes, then unlikely it is > going to be accepted because attributes by definition are meta-data. It > doesn't add any logic for program. Actually, that is not true either. PHP already has one attribute that PHP itself recognizes, named "Attribute." As Larry Garfield wrote[1]: "The #[Attribute] attribute tells PHP βyes, this class can be loaded as an attribute.β You can also see that future scope was explicitly envisioned[2] that some small number of attributes might potentially be more than just metadata. -Mike [1] https://platform.sh/blog/2020/php-8-0-feature-focus-attributes/ <https://platform.sh/blog/2020/php-8-0-feature-focus-attributes/> [2] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attributes_v2#future_scope <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attributes_v2#future_scope>
