Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110378 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 15553 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2020 21:45:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 4 Jun 2020 21:45:59 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B70180510 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 13:28:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT, FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lj1-f176.google.com (mail-lj1-f176.google.com [209.85.208.176]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 13:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f176.google.com with SMTP id a25so8990908ljp.3 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 13:28:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+NR4LBjUtaLgiNUOGfuvPHO9negFfOEpKK4M1GSW1VU=; b=IwrcPpLGkkYWq+W2RLJk3dpJ8rP++f4oZC3cre3dS0RI+ngv5mrIV5CyIlsZ8spcJq zb1o+oqZORn8jynWejpKC1NBaPwjT9d0KE4a21dKeJJZ5DAJKhKezLmEePmjzZlcdRcs AAFriRXP8d//JfhErCG783qvcwpuKHwx0oJXDc2YUiN6fgEs9+o0lVfvEOc2jJ5EOjAs XvOfBQNiw9j2TmzGRCAhCGqOchs62aYgTXXcXm9BeKkJlY4p1xIVaIcCF9Z81l8yB88B NvqBdgR1Cq12M7hgtc6soa7D5zJwupyx3IDnRhVf+fH5wbWCMlrCDmDs7XTFpv+4iBi+ 8aIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+NR4LBjUtaLgiNUOGfuvPHO9negFfOEpKK4M1GSW1VU=; b=BsoPRbdLg5iboM/ca5deRxCtIngZ1+AuhYycwDmNeCHJGgi+OaujIMw2kPwUO8blh/ Xve4ocqJCIWX7cWzfBB/tIYWZwlnkPqsXjbpNSZABNb8jpIFVYH7XDK4nJbj6yfzcYjG 2Fv+Fg3N7Z9xXU3fCOxQtv+h0rET36ED3eS2mJFuPnskh3ekPW552lOMrHx3aTsV9ZEN YgDodBlslEhQV6w5kiAnUZwMzLPwfVoLdGLMqykbcszDHg9JOkoUiosfD7xGBTr/vSFC lzklbNsw5K88v0lb2Mfb/aAd+WQ3EBosNjZ2DuQEOJr1mqD12jb1KYnjwySd0hC1kEAC ExmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531FkWcPkYH6+zMRUhmF3Nx0QgrycwBpn3RvSYJqPKyDET3FXw2C 9126Gmqg33fGRxABYB5ons9ytjPHwTDgZ+I3C3PsnYCl X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwCIlF5lLRS/+GKSPd60JMI2LDAXO2H77dGy7Ne4N76sfxyb62pOo1l+hahGpV5iJEHs8yLsZHrg8q2+WVJL/s= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:94d0:: with SMTP id r16mr2831472ljh.351.1591302501857; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 13:28:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 17:28:07 -0300 Message-ID: To: Theodore Brown Cc: internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005a7dd105a747fcc5" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Shorter attribute syntax From: marcio.web2@gmail.com (Marcio Almada) --0000000000005a7dd105a747fcc5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello! > > Hi internals, > > I discussed the syntax for attributes further with Benjamin, Martin, > and several other internals developers off-list, and with their > feedback completed an RFC proposing to use the shorter `@@` syntax > instead of `<<>>` for attributes in PHP 8. I'd also prefer any attribute syntax without the bracket-like pair of tokens. I'm just a bit confused about the RFC itself and the PR content at this point. The RFC is currently proposing `@@MyAttribute()` and the PR is currently implementing `@:MyAttribute()` as the sigil. The first brings a BC break and the second doesn't, being the important difference. I'm inclined to `@:` instead of `@@`. Which one will actually be on the ballot? :D Thanks, M=C3=A1rcio Almada --0000000000005a7dd105a747fcc5--