> So if we had a #[NotSerializable] attribute (which I agree might be a good > idea) it would be implemented by setting the ZEND_ACC_NOT_SERIALIZABLE flag > on a class definition, and if this RFC passes, it would automatically apply > to json_encode() as well as serialize(). >
My mistake, I haven't familiarized myself with some of the more recent engine changes but this all makes sense. My point was more to ask the question "Would it be reasonable to expand the scope of this RFC to introduce a #[NotSerializable] attribute along with the rest of the proposal?" Coogle
