Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110323
To: Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>, PHP Internals
	<internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Amendments to Attributes
Thread-Index: AQHWLslAmZDPs0th10Ou1V1jrsV2UKjC7E+B
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 23:48:19 +0000
Message-ID:
 <BYAPR05MB65353FFCCE742728E4193F9DDE8D0@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References:
 <CAEPJdum6xCwABjpor1YYvuosSB1dEb4xnCZEMABKsEEvNXvcQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:
 <CAEPJdum6xCwABjpor1YYvuosSB1dEb4xnCZEMABKsEEvNXvcQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [a/th4hy5+EC0w5CPfMHxAyFfS1YpAo1P]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 45
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: eb50a141-59d7-433a-3fb0-08d805bd18b6
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN3NAM04HT073:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:
 HF9ilaQz2pCi6KVxf0vUsMzlJnz4CEzL5fIIH3gdfeoTDeyDgocDPq7VPx9qV5NdXevQrosP2Plin3UfNr0davno8KNHfPBptXSkwdTxJkIQerj1nSVetppcoFVQ4vu77YruEZ+ciBbPlYRSuJwBbqRvlXvBw1qunGAlasMJBMjoWDcfCHOqsbPG7giX9TPfodwCXK6NDXxj8OniOQoVxXak16JDGEtjR4AHZTrQH6lCDPo1dT0dU5+nEK1tIo4L
x-forefront-antispam-report:
 CIP:255.255.255.255;CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:0;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE;SFTY:;SFS:;DIR:OUT;SFP:1901;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata:
 WH1oGsnSR86iXwc9+AnIO2o7cz8+KHZ+Lybu+6S1afmxSBYbQXvMk7ZVPWm6yB/7gnuq3ExFw4cEzbfAsj5VP2kIe5YwUIaOitvIFL8IS/jJAXQHQpBIh92WgoXppOlC1ia6EYioxZUms3ZZ/M6XjA==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: eb50a141-59d7-433a-3fb0-08d805bd18b6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 May 2020 23:48:19.3550
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3NAM04HT073
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Amendments to Attributes
From: theodorejb@outlook.com (Theodore Brown)

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:07 PM Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de> wro=
te:=0A=
=0A=
> the Attributes RFC was rather large already, so a few things were left=0A=
> open or discussions during the vote have made us rethink a things.=0A=
>=0A=
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attribute_amendments=0A=
>=0A=
> These points are handled by the Amendments RFC to Attributes:=0A=
>=0A=
> 1. Proposing to add a grouped syntax <<Attr1, Attr2>=0A=
=0A=
Hi Benjamin,=0A=
=0A=
I find the grouped attribute proposal somewhat troubling. The RFC=0A=
contains the following example:=0A=
=0A=
```php=0A=
<<Attr2("foo"),=0A=
  Attr2("bar")>>=0A=
public function test()=0A=
{=0A=
}=0A=
```=0A=
=0A=
The problem with this syntax is that adding a new attribute at the =0A=
start or end of the list, or removing one of the attributes, will=0A=
require modifying multiple lines. For some time the language has been=0A=
moving away from this (see the various RFCs to allow trailing commas=0A=
in more places), so this feels like a step backwards.=0A=
=0A=
If trailing commas are allowed in grouped attributes, you could=0A=
write it this way instead:=0A=
=0A=
```php=0A=
<<=0A=
  Attr2("foo"),=0A=
  Attr2("bar"),=0A=
>>=0A=
public function test()=0A=
{=0A=
}=0A=
```=0A=
=0A=
But to me this still feels rather clunky. It requires two extra lines, =0A=
and when moving from two attributes to one attribute (or vice versa),=0A=
you'd still probably end up modifying multiple lines.=0A=
=0A=
Another issue with the grouped syntax is that comma separated=0A=
attributes can be easy to confuse with comma separated attribute =0A=
arguments. For example:=0A=
=0A=
```php=0A=
<<FooAttr(2 * 3 + 3), Bar(4 + 5 * 2)>>=0A=
<<BarAttr(2 * (3 + 3), Baz, (4 + 5) * 2)>>=0A=
function bar() {}=0A=
```=0A=
=0A=
It can be hard to tell which line contains multiple attributes vs.=0A=
multiple attribute arguments.=0A=
=0A=
Ultimately it seems like the grouped attribute proposal is attempting=0A=
to work around the poor usability of the current verbose syntax. Maybe=0A=
it would be better to instead propose a simpler syntax that avoids=0A=
these issues. I know that some internals members expressed interest=0A=
in an `@@` token, but this was never voted on.=0A=
=0A=
Having a distinct token for attributes would entirely avoid the issues=0A=
of having to modify multiple lines when adding/removing attributes, as=0A=
well as confusion with shift operators and comma-separated attribute=0A=
arguments. E.g. the RFC example would look like this instead:=0A=
=0A=
```php=0A=
@@Attr2("foo")=0A=
@@Attr2("bar")=0A=
public function test()=0A=
{=0A=
}=0A=
```=0A=
=0A=
To me this would be a lot cleaner and fit in better with the rest of=0A=
the language.=0A=
=0A=
Best regards,=0A=
Theodore=0A=