Re: [PHP-DEV] T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 03:31, Ryan Jentzsch wrote: > https://phil.tech/2013/wtf-is-t-paamayim-nekudotayim/ https://3v4l.org/guXbl#v800alpha3 You're welcome. -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]

Re: [PHP-DEV] T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

We read phil's post years ago (it is from 2013). Do you have anything new to contribute to the discourse other than posting a link to a post from 7 years ago? If so, you should present that and not old web pages . Walter On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:31 PM Ryan Jentzsch wrote: > >

[PHP-DEV] T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

https://phil.tech/2013/wtf-is-t-paamayim-nekudotayim/

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On 7/28/2020 08:31, Nikita Popov wrote: However, with my RM hat on, I need to feel like we're as sure as we can be about this syntax before it's public. I'm willing to extend an additional period (up to the tagging of beta3, in just under six weeks) for a re-vote on the syntax as changing that

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 6:46 PM Sara Golemon wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:19 AM Sara Golemon wrote: > > > If that's the case, then the solution still seems obvious: Defer > > attributes to 8.1. > > > > After some discussion off list, including Nikita (who is probably closer > to this

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:19 AM Sara Golemon wrote: > If that's the case, then the solution still seems obvious: Defer > attributes to 8.1. > > After some discussion off list, including Nikita (who is probably closer to this "problem" than any of the rest of us), I think the best way forward at

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

I think that we need some symbol that isn't open-and-close like << and >>, because it will conflict with shift operation, and basically all open-and-close options are used for other things; or that confuses with error suppression like @@ and comments like #[]. Maybe we really need a new keyword,

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Just to chime in, `<<...>>` does not have any BC implications or problems with bit shift operators. On Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 6:05 PM Marcio Almada wrote: > Hi > > > On Thu, July 23 2020 at 1:26 AM Mark Randall wrote: > > > > > On 23/07/2020 02:00, Sara Golemon wrote: > > > > Regards the vote; I

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:26 AM Mark Randall wrote: > On 23/07/2020 02:00, Sara Golemon wrote: > > Regards the vote; I don't believe that @@ has been proven unworkable, > > however if I'm wrong about that, then the second choice selection from > the > > last vote would obviously take precedence.

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Hi > On Thu, July 23 2020 at 1:26 AM Mark Randall wrote: > > > On 23/07/2020 02:00, Sara Golemon wrote: > > > Regards the vote; I don't believe that @@ has been proven unworkable, > > > however if I'm wrong about that, then the second choice selection from the > > > last vote would obviously

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Thu, July 23 2020 at 1:26 AM Mark Randall wrote: > On 23/07/2020 02:00, Sara Golemon wrote: > > Regards the vote; I don't believe that @@ has been proven unworkable, > > however if I'm wrong about that, then the second choice selection from the > > last vote would obviously take precedence. >

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Hi, On 22/07/2020 19:09, tyson andre wrote: > I think that `#[` has its own issues, but am open to re-voting on it. > For example, the following snippet would get parsed differently in PHP 7.4 > and PHP 8.0, given a hypothetical JIT annotation for Opcache. > With <>, it would give people a clear

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On 23/07/2020 08:02, Côme Chilliet wrote: To be clear, is there anyone who voted for @@ and changed his mind based on new information? Please see the initial discussion here: https://externals.io/message/110568#111038 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe,

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Le Thu, 23 Jul 2020 07:26:41 +0100, Mark Randall a écrit : > What we do have, is a deep sense of unease that we collectively made the > wrong decision, based on, in part, incomplete information. To be clear, is there anyone who voted for @@ and changed his mind based on new information? I

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On 23/07/2020 02:00, Sara Golemon wrote: Regards the vote; I don't believe that @@ has been proven unworkable, however if I'm wrong about that, then the second choice selection from the last vote would obviously take precedence. I don't believe the concern is that we have something unworkable

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 4:29 PM Sara Golemon wrote: > Citation Needed. > > The '@' token and the T_DOUBLE_AT token come from the lexer as distinct > values, where is the conflict? > > I'm not doubting that there is one, you're quite clever, but at the moment > you're stating facts not currently

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On 22-07-2020 18:51, Derick Rethans wrote: > This is something that STV is specifically designed to solve. You rank > in order by preference. And @@, <<>>, and #[] were all three options. > > In your example, these people would have marked @@ as first, <<>> as > second, and #[] as third. Ah,

[PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

However this syntax allows it to be used on 7.4 unlike any other.   This means that the initial transition of library functionality to it will be very smooth and will not require a separate implementation of polyfills for the syntax of doctrine annotations and attributes.   With any other

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 7:00 AM Derick Rethans wrote: > I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that > the @@ syntax is a good idea? > > Yes. Because we voted on it. Twice. > - It has the distinct possibility to cause further parsing issues, akin > to what ended up

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On 22-07-2020 16:45, Joe Ferguson wrote: > I would be happy to author an RFC on replacing @@ with #[] but based on > Larry's comments it sounds like the weighted voting already solved this > issue for us? We as internals just need to decide that @@ isn't a solution > and defer to the next ranked

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Hi! > I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that > the @@ syntax is a good idea? I think it's not a very good idea, and <<>> was just fine, but a lot of folks apparently voted for it. Would be nice to see their opinion and how they answer your concerns. I'm not sure

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Hi Derick, > Please, let's do the sensible and use the Rusty #[...] syntax. I'd probably re-vote for `<>` given the fact that `@@` may introduce similar parsing ambiguities in the future that may interfere with future language changes. (but those issues are not a certainty) I think that `#[`

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Wed, July 22 2020 at 7:00 AM Derick Rethans wrote: > I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that > the @@ syntax is a good idea? > > - There are lots of grumbles, both on here, room 11, as well as in the > wider community

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020, Dik Takken wrote: > We do not know what the @@ voters would have chosen if the choice was > between << >> and #[]. In case the @@ voters have a preference for > <<>> the result could turn out differently. The only way to know is to > take another vote. This is something

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On 22/07/2020 17:43, Dik Takken wrote: That means we effectively disregard the preferences of the ones who voted for the @@ syntax. We do not know what the @@ voters would have chosen if the choice was between << >> and #[]. In case the @@ voters have a preference for << >> the result could turn

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Am 22.07.2020 um 16:45 schrieb Joe Ferguson: We as internals just need to decide that @@ isn't a solution and defer to the next ranked vote? I'd be the first one to +1. Makes sense to me; +1. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit:

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Hello, Internals, I would be happy to author an RFC on replacing @@ with #[] but based on Larry's comments it sounds like the weighted voting already solved this issue for us? We as internals just need to decide that @@ isn't a solution and defer to the next ranked vote? I'd be the first one to

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 14:00, Derick Rethans wrote: > Hi all, > > I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that > the @@ syntax is a good idea? > > - There are lots of grumbles, both on here, room 11, as well as in the > wider community

Re[2]: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

I completely agree with this statement. Moreover, I had to write a full-fledged preprocessor in order to implement library functionality, suitable for both attributes and doctrine annotations (for version 7.4 and below).   Rust-like syntax (#[xxx]) is both visually pleasing and creates much

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

My suggestion is the tilde (~). Currently is used only as the bitwise NOT operator, but in this context seems to not have any problem. ~ Attribute1(~1) ~ Attribute2(...) function withAttribute() { ... } Or then we could use another more detailed syntax: <-- Attribute(...), ... --> ::

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

+1 El mié., 22 jul. 2020 a las 9:00, Derick Rethans () escribió: > Hi all, > > I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that > the @@ syntax is a good idea? > > - There are lots of grumbles, both on here, room 11, as well as in the > wider community

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Le Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:00:10 +0100 (BST), Derick Rethans a écrit : > Please, let's do the sensible and use the Rusty #[...] syntax. This syntax is the one I liked the less in the proposed choices, given # is used for comments. Wouldn’t #[] cause more parsing issues than @@? What would be the

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020, at 7:49 AM, Brent Roose wrote: > Doesn't it make the most sense to re-vote the syntax? I'd consider the > previous vote to be invalid given the parsing issues that weren't > listed in the RFC. > > A re-vote seems the most fair: if the majority still prefers @@, then > so

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Doesn't it make the most sense to re-vote the syntax? I'd consider the previous vote to be invalid given the parsing issues that weren't listed in the RFC. A re-vote seems the most fair: if the majority still prefers @@, then so be it. Otherwise the syntax changes once again, before

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 13:39, Deleu wrote: > "Terrible" is the amount of humans having their lives taken by a pandemic. > This is at most slightly inconvenient for you. The aggressive tone in this > discussion is extremely unnecessary. > When the voted syntax is technically infeasible due to

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:40 PM Deleu wrote: > "Terrible" is the amount of humans having their lives taken by a pandemic. > This is at most slightly inconvenient for you. The aggressive tone in this > discussion is extremely unnecessary. > After the RFC was voted on for @@, objectively

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:39 PM Deleu wrote: > "Terrible" is the amount of humans having their lives taken by a pandemic. > This is at most slightly inconvenient for you. The aggressive tone in this > discussion is extremely unnecessary. > Hi, If you want to get nitpicky about the definition:

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Hi, On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:00 PM Derick Rethans wrote: > Hi all, > > I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that > the @@ syntax is a good idea? > I agree that @@ is really bad. Personally I'd prefer <<...>> but #[...] seems fine as well (although it's a minor BC

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

"Terrible" is the amount of humans having their lives taken by a pandemic. This is at most slightly inconvenient for you. The aggressive tone in this discussion is extremely unnecessary. On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:00 PM Derick Rethans wrote: > Hi all, > > I know we've voted twice on this

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Hi Derick, śr., 22 lip 2020 o 14:00 Derick Rethans napisał(a): > Hi all, > > I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that > the @@ syntax is a good idea? > > - There are lots of grumbles, both on here, room 11, as well as in the > wider community

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Also, +1. I don't really care whether we switch back to `<<...>>` or `#[...]` but I think `@@` was a bad choice and thus, I think it would be a much more sensible decision to change the syntax again. At least for the sake of not running into new ambiguities and in order to stay more similar with

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Am 22.07.2020 um 14:00 schrieb Derick Rethans: Please, let's do the sensible and use the Rusty #[...] syntax. +1 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:00 PM Derick Rethans wrote: > Hi all, > > I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that > the @@ syntax is a good idea? > Pretty much clear that @@ is a bad choice - it was picked due to familiarity of some folks

[PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Hi all, I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that the @@ syntax is a good idea? - There are lots of grumbles, both on here, room 11, as well as in the wider community (https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/hjpu79/it_is/) - It has the distinct possibility to cause