On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 12:56 AM Jakob Givoni <ja...@givoni.dk> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 11:36 AM Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de> > wrote: > > > > We have updated the RFC with all (hopefully) of the feedback from this > > discussion: > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change > > > > Most notable changes are: > > - A new section with several subsections on the benefits of a closing > > delimiter / enclosing syntax. > > - A section on grouping pro/cons > > - Inclusion of @: as per Theodores request > > > > We are looking for further feedback from the community. > > > > From the updated RFC: > > > There are multiple reasons why we believe the previous vote should be > revisited: > > Ok, bring it on! > > > At the point of the vote for @@, it was not clear that the syntax > required the namespace token RFC to be viable. > > While this is not a problem anymore, the @@ syntax might not have come > out on top if this information was known beforehand. > > If anything, this is an argument AGAINST this RFC. A "bad" decision > was taken. The problem with it was fixed. No need to change anything. > The argument comes across as disingenuous, I'm afraid. >
And then boo-yah, 6 months later we want to implement a cool new feature to attributes (a lot of examples were said before, ain't repeating myself) but we can't :(( because there is no ending delimiter and thus, we will run into parsing issues. > Moving on... > > > The #[] syntax provides the benefit of forward compatibility, but this > also introduces some potential problems for PHP 7 code. > > An alternative syntax @[] was suggested to eleviate these problems which > was not previously voted on. > > Ok, let's analyze the logic here as well: #[] lost the vote. #[] would > have had some problems. Are there any What problems? Besides the BC breaks that all of the syntaxes (except `<<...>>`) have, there are no problems. syntaxes we still haven't voted > on? Yes! > Come on... > > And lastly... > > > We argue why we should strongly favor a syntax with closing delimiter to > keep consistency with other parts > > of the language and propose to use #[], @[], or the original << … >> > instead. > > This is the only part that contains logically valid arguments, albeit > most are subjective and speculative. Which is not to say it's not > worth voting on them. > But looking for actual facts, I only came across only this little cutie: > > For VIM users, the % operation to jump between opening and closing part > of declaration that would automatically work with [ and ]. > I fully expect all 3 VIM users to vote in favor of this RFC ;-) > > Ok, enough of my sarcasm - I only wish you'd put your strongest > arguments first and focused on quality over quantity. > I wish someone actually gave reasonable arguments as to why `@@` is better. Because a) no one cares if we have to type 2 or 3 characters b) `@@` does not ensure 100% safe future c) it does not decrease complexity in any way. > - Jakob > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
