Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111138 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 92519 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2020 22:35:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 2020 22:35:10 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22031804E6 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:29:40 -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=3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lj1-f181.google.com (mail-lj1-f181.google.com [209.85.208.181]) (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 ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f181.google.com with SMTP id j11so4092222ljo.7 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:29:40 -0700 (PDT) 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=Q1nw1FSqhdPsRbYzAZgUQ8iPZ5KRm4hWmujkU8MzhFk=; b=OgXvEr4W+za8E6T/YHaJKYVKbjF+yfvyRrTyaJ0VlVFedu0/8Kd3tR7SPB457ieLIs Eh752e2ekLIETP7IpvpqCmrKypelPwLKha1VVthRWpgDIJsbQqB7v6nNox7QGpy5Mui3 u4uu8TBhdX+TxWKZRQf1hPNRBzej6y4dGBAq5aPZMNzN4KJ/hudbLkFaev/tg9qQSBBf 1cuTDgehZGpqqlJAF6pWfxVO8EE62SvKLfXC0Cm7BfyshB7/Y/1q2mxZP9yRNh+if5qx RFHW5mkf+WJ/phh229pPOcPAd3f7tmMZAHLvXCihWA3i1w9mujxXq3JavF46So1xO22O gEBA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532yO11l7bUnsqVTxgwn3OSQr0bgR+2bdOqCjwtvSlJyjt8qTxwK WVEb+LX11iPlBhBrhBePIjAav6O7K0t6JONhOBYdnfCW X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzN/m5leHfU2auenvFiBKfXPnqz4HfU9M0M0exzpUJbEhAfKiQ2YtTnwwMbPVHyVQYQ+dNsmLY2glKoV/YHMw4= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9585:: with SMTP id w5mr457591ljh.58.1595453378770; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:29:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 16:29:27 -0500 Message-ID: To: Derick Rethans Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e5c9ab05ab0e6fb7" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it? From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon) --000000000000e5c9ab05ab0e6fb7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 7:00 AM Derick Rethans wrote: > I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that > the @@ syntax is a good idea? > > Yes. Because we voted on it. Twice. > - It has the distinct possibility to cause further parsing issues, akin > to what ended up happening with what Nikita is addressing at > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaced_names_as_token Citation Needed. The '@' token and the T_DOUBLE_AT token come from the lexer as distinct values, where is the conflict? I'm not doubting that there is one, you're quite clever, but at the moment you're stating facts not currently in evidence. > - There is no "end symbol" to make finding occurences easier. - It is a syntax *no other language* uses. > - @ is never going to go away, so the possibility of @@ moving to @ is > also 0. > > We knew each of these points at the time of voting. This is not new information. > Please, let's do the sensible and use the Rusty #[...] syntax. > > Remoaner. (j/k, you know I love you) I'm fine with this or any syntax, but FF is 13 days away, you're going to have to give me something more substantial than "It maybe breaks something somewhere somehow". -Sara --000000000000e5c9ab05ab0e6fb7--