Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111132
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, PHP Developers Mailing List
	<internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?
Thread-Index: AQHWYB+rUGwGcqcE20Oh+f8rjGIUUKkTxai4
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:05:49 +0000
Message-ID:
 <BYAPR05MB6535BCDDBB0592A8DB028475DE790@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References:
 <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2007221247530.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
In-Reply-To:
 <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2007221247530.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [QFo5F53Sxgz/RBGdUHYI1buOse1e7mhb]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 44
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 34bc9e6e-e49d-4484-48d9-08d82e617bec
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6NAM11HT082:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:
 PSpOKl9gEmPgAYzv1ZMN5AEFWqCI974X36tsIHyaBAxOMmJqjhSJzU5Y8yC92Xjnj10qBi9Iuj8BfWAUXIMljF2mh0aYjVZUKyNQeohzARks/1ZdToriE2zjDGfBgE2Bn7rJ/kmwiGpFbVY5BKS3ROYIuXUSXOGUcjE32p3PNbIqPEspymD/Mgz1mrXDE13BaPdkMaEguDX0YqnNDuoUX80r4agP1SAzsPy7+ioM8AliQV3O9UNzgIQYYlkolz6V
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:
 3BGXqiZyhb88YysWBWH51thWyQiRw+FwbCR3HIV4pHOa7bx7MKjA8d9tk80Z2qJqNqDtQ0XlY7HHqU1sspuzqQkrOrrwFV1GsqY7EerJHOUAAlMlygN2BXjHbjt0A9iLNf1giWVcdlk02zYx4ltkcQ==
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-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6NAM11FT037.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 34bc9e6e-e49d-4484-48d9-08d82e617bec
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Jul 2020 17:05:49.7923
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6NAM11HT082
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?
From: theodorejb@outlook.com (Theodore Brown)

On Wed, July 22 2020 at 7:00 AM Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:=0A=
=0A=
> I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that=0A=
> the @@ syntax is a good idea?=0A=
> =0A=
> - There are lots of grumbles, both on here, room 11, as well as in the=0A=
>   wider community (https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/hjpu79/it_is/)=
=0A=
> - It has the distinct possibility to cause further parsing issues, akin=
=0A=
>   to what ended up happening with what Nikita is addressing at=0A=
>   https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaced_names_as_token=0A=
> - There is no "end symbol" to make finding occurences easier.=0A=
> - It is a syntax *no other language* uses.=0A=
> - @ is never going to go away, so the possibility of @@ moving to @ is=0A=
>   also 0.=0A=
> =0A=
> Please, let's do the sensible and use the Rusty #[...] syntax.=0A=
=0A=
Hi Derick,=0A=
=0A=
Most of the comments in that Reddit thread appear to be positive or=0A=
neutral, and in the earlier community poll, the @@ syntax received by=0A=
far the most votes (https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/h06bra/community_=
poll_attribute_syntax/).=0A=
So while some in the community may prefer a different syntax, this=0A=
doesn't seem to reflect the majority.=0A=
=0A=
If @@ actually has parsing issues, then I would agree that we need to=0A=
pick another syntax. But there aren't any issues following Nikita's=0A=
RFC to treat namespaced names as tokens. Please check out the=0A=
implementation and let me know if you find any problems:=0A=
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/5796.=0A=
=0A=
While most would like to have a single @ character for attributes,=0A=
since this isn't possible @@ is the closest alternative, and it=0A=
shouldn't present any parsing issues that wouldn't also affect a=0A=
single @ character. Of course it will always be possible to think of=0A=
theoretical ambiguities with unconventional future syntax, but in=0A=
practice this hasn't been an issue for the many other languages using @.=0A=
=0A=
One of the benefits of @@ is actually making it easier to find=0A=
occurrences. <<>> is problematic here since these characters also=0A=
occur in heredocs/nowdocs and bit shifts. And the ending bracket of=0A=
#[] is also used for arrays, so it's not clear that this is very=0A=
helpful, either.=0A=
=0A=
The benefit of #[] being exactly the same as another language was=0A=
considered in the Shorter Attribute Syntax RFC, but apparently most=0A=
voters didn't feel that this outweighed the downsides of a larger BC=0A=
break, extra verbosity, and possible confusion with comments.=0A=
=0A=
If there isn't an actual technical problem with the implementation, I=0A=
don't think it would be appropriate to hold another vote, or discard=0A=
the first preference vote of all those who preferred the @@ syntax.=0A=
=0A=
Best regards,=0A=
Theodore=