On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 16:17, Theodore Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In theory nested attributes could be supported in the same way with
> the `#[]` syntax, but it's more verbose and I think less intuitive
> (e.g. people may try to use the grouped syntax in this context, but
> it wouldn't work). Also the combination of brackets delineating both
> arrays and attributes reduces readability:
>
> #[Assert\All([
> #[Assert\Email],
> #[Assert\NotBlank],
> #[Assert\Length(max: 100)]
> ])]
>
I think you're presupposing how a feature would work that hasn't even been
specced out yet. On the face of it, it would seem logical and achievable
for the above to be equivalent to this:
#[Assert\All(
#[
Assert\Email,
Assert\NotBlank,
Assert\Length(max: 100)
]
)]
i.e. for a list of grouped attributes in nested context to be equivalent to
an array of nested attributes.
Unless nested attributes were limited to being direct arguments to another
attribute, the *semantics* of nested attributes inside arrays would have to
be defined anyway (e.g. how they would look in reflection, whether they
would be recursively instantiated by newInstance(), etc).
Regards,
--
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
