You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Do not require a DocBlock for typed class attributes
Expected behavior
Class attributes that have specified types should not require a DocBlock. When an attribute already has a type, the DocBlock is providing no new information, and is instead just creating noise - e.g.:
We already have the type information - we don't need the DocBlock to tell us the type.
I propose that the rule regarding class attributes requiring a @var annotation with a type be changed so that it only applies to attributes without a specified type.
Benefits
Removes the need for redundant comments
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Description
Do not require a DocBlock for typed class attributes
Expected behavior
Class attributes that have specified types should not require a DocBlock. When an attribute already has a type, the DocBlock is providing no new information, and is instead just creating noise - e.g.:
We already have the type information - we don't need the DocBlock to tell us the type.
I propose that the rule regarding class attributes requiring a
@var
annotation with a type be changed so that it only applies to attributes without a specified type.Benefits
Removes the need for redundant comments
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: