On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 12:03, Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> wrote: > > You still haven't addressed any of the deficiencies that the other > alternatives don't have: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change#proposal >
That table would be a lot more useful to steer the discussion if it was accompanied by an explanation of each of the factors, as some of them are extremely vague: * Do the three "Yes"es in the "Difficulties with Userland Parsers" relate to the same problem? What is it specifically, and how does <<Foo>> avoid it? Is it really true that <<Foo>> has _no_ difficulties for userland parsers, or just that it avoids that particular problem? * "Number of required characters" is the number for a single, ungrouped attribute. The number of characters saved by grouped attributes would be a more useful measure than just whether they're possible. * There is no explanation of _why_ end delimiters are an important factor. * If it is important, my question before stands as to why "@@Attr()" with mandatory parentheses wouldn't receive a "Yes" in this row. * "Familiar with Docblock Usage" seems to be rather subjective; is it the "@" that makes it familiar? the lack of extra brackets? I'm not sure it's fair to boil this down to a straight yes/no. * "Tokens Used" seems to be an implementation detail, with no explanation of why this would make a difference to anyone's vote. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]
