Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111039 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 57964 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2020 09:21:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 16 Jul 2020 09:21:05 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4981804DB for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 01:13:57 -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=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,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-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-io1-f42.google.com (mail-io1-f42.google.com [209.85.166.42]) (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, 16 Jul 2020 01:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-f42.google.com with SMTP id e64so5075914iof.12 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 01:13:57 -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=QpkWzALTiYTFDxXRtB2uRZlJIoq/ND54sCcDVhO7MLg=; b=BGf1I62j/PlqiIrp4DFlfoiEotNStVrt6u0cyMx7TcyUAYV6B5PbdPF/lVdQ7eWQ9l GBQekiY5sfMu2h7x1V5rNz0mWm21svRbRHNXLLY6g9dXkCgsxUY4G+aiheLYeE8QZCWG HzvPoRFRKRxsGsy9Aes+TIUWcpX0jEIhqNYgWDAXRrXWacIuKGjZmfydcg2CBwtgrkke mAMv0IznUx516PH/y3OsEmaPvILfMDLaTOzhZuDCYcgqzpYRYzAxVdHFLEb0uOQOJ5rh 6FMK/luFPSkKu2noiCxb5wYcxvepP4FT0Nyf82YReYttljPfo7HzDQ5M1ClET0+VjRW0 Kceg== 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=QpkWzALTiYTFDxXRtB2uRZlJIoq/ND54sCcDVhO7MLg=; b=bTypkb6n7BdUnDXr6cAiHSZmLYE0y3YkLdBma7LsgfOpaS2myqb8sb3io9FeqBs3Q7 TOSz+iIv/ZRygXHz3etZTNjJZ3U6A0FOo0mzclv6byFWr8bIOTCHBhlfYm/hh3sZcXiv SRwvfw7OUujNorQJQX94NrnPUtfjdHVYYnCz4rffn8qQKvevwFDlBbQ2/+kC6nwy+WTl wcJIH9RmE9CJn8HhEEcEgI2D4u+D3CG5zcrJVweNHN4eTM90hNam821IGNu9stO1/ypp Ump4N49oTrcMf+zo1QtjqGPL6pjpcMDdgSI3Zf3keLfnQZmXSoBoLorWHFdRGxSf1/mG ohfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532EhhS0imk0Q0C4UbBUIPjYdji0L+MKq/e0exuBVGz73hOjc8ng 03/6majiWVtPHQQHILk/dZ3ASohm X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwfmW/GsuE40PDaXt6BHZ4Hyx4P0TBmbS8mH9ApdE6ZADmpseIxvCpThn5YnJeyi3pSCgOqdQ== X-Received: by 2002:a02:ac8e:: with SMTP id x14mr3778937jan.57.1594887236465; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 01:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-f51.google.com (mail-io1-f51.google.com. [209.85.166.51]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o16sm2361874ilt.59.2020.07.16.01.13.55 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 01:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-f51.google.com with SMTP id q74so5143152iod.1 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 01:13:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c80a:: with SMTP id y10mr3310700iof.67.1594887235284; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 01:13:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:13:19 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Nikita Popov Cc: tyson andre , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001dc4bc05aa8a9f27" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Treat namespaced names as single token, relax reserved keyword restrictions From: phpmailinglists@gmail.com (Peter Bowyer) --0000000000001dc4bc05aa8a9f27 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 09:04, Nikita Popov wrote: > While I don't think anyone had plans to mix whitespace, this is indicative > of a larger issue. While I'm one of the people who voted for @@ as my first > choice before, I wouldn't do so now (even with this RFC accepted). This > issue made me realize that there is more at stake here than just "which > syntax is prettier?" and choices that have a "closing tag" are technically > more favorable, especially if we consider future extensions of the > attribute system that may introduce additional ambiguities (e.g., Rust > allows placing attributes pretty much everywhere in code -- how sure are we > that there will be no unanticipated ambiguities?) > Thanks for this clear explainer. I hadn't appreciated the "no closing delimiter" issues during the original vote, also picking @@. As many other languages use '@' as their symbol, how do they handle or avoid the whitespace issues? Peter --0000000000001dc4bc05aa8a9f27--