Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111227
Message-ID: <79DC1760-6BBC-45E2-A5CC-0E0C076204B7@pmjones.io>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_A9951AEA-7D2B-43BB-BCF9-BFD40E23495F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:55:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB6535E638D874FB9D6653411CDE730@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Joe Ferguson <joe@joeferguson.me>,
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Theodore Brown <theodorejb@outlook.com>
References: <CABj1Babv0bZyeNYBBOCZwG92NCT722G_tRt+hHZFxu4dHZckqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BYAPR05MB6535E638D874FB9D6653411CDE730@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
From: pmjones@pmjones.io ("Paul M. Jones")

--Apple-Mail=_A9951AEA-7D2B-43BB-BCF9-BFD40E23495F
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

Hi all,

> On Jul 28, 2020, at 12:57, Theodore Brown <theodorejb@outlook.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> On Tue, July 28, 2020 at 9:46 AM Joe Ferguson <joe@joeferguson.me> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> ...
>>=20
>> Feedback to Derick's tweet =
(https://twitter.com/derickr/status/1285912223639130114)
>> were [sic] overwhelmingly positive
>=20
> Are you sure? I took a look at the thread and it seems like the
> responses were pretty mixed.

Let's count. + is "change away from @@ to anything else", - is "stay =
with @@", ? is hard-to-tell/weak/uncertain/they-all-suck.

Derick Rethans: ++
Rafael Dohms: +?
Alexander Berl: -?
Chris Emerson: --
Tamas Erdelyi: ??
Phili Weinke: ??
Trent: ++
Juriaan Ruitenberg: ++
Mehran: ++
Stephan Hochdorfer: ??
Cees-Jan Kiewiet: ??
Tom Witkowski: ++
Matiss: ++
Henry Paradiz: --
Saif: ??
Paul Redmond: ??
Marco Pivetta: ++
Simon Champion: ??
@eimihar: ??
Brent: +?
Graham Campbell: +?
Dmitri Goosens: ++
Sergej Kurakin: -?
Francis Lavoie: ??
Michael Moravec: ??
John Hunt: ??
Lars Moelleken: ??
Michal Brzuchalski: -?
Kyrre: ??
Steve MacDougall: ++
Agustin Gomes: ??
Mike Rockett: ++
Matias Navarro: ++
Marisa Clardy: ++
Warp Speed: --
WJB: +?
Martijn Minnis: --
Dennis de Best: ??
Damo: ??
SOFTonSOFA: +?
Ashish K. Poudel: +?
Bastien Remy: ??
Matiss: +?
Thierry D.: +?
Ihor Vorotnov: ??
Hugo Alliaume: ??
Juan Millan: +?
Olbaum: +?
Steve Baumann: ??
James Mallison: ??
Marco Deleu: ??
TheGenuinenessSheriff: ++
Golgote: ??

++: 13 definitely prefer changing to something other than @@ (though not =
necessarily #[])
+?: 10 probably prefer changing to something other than @@ (though not =
necessarily #[])
??: 23 hard-to-tell/weak/uncertain/they-all-suck
-?: 3 probably prefer to keep @@
--: 4 definitely prefer to keep @@

So, the majority of Twitter respondents in that thread appear to be =
against @@, and in favor of "something else" (24 to 7).

Having pointed all that out, I note that Twitter is not the voting =
mechanism here. Further, I opine that "voting repeatedly until the =
voters get it 'right' and then calling the matter settled for all time" =
is not how decision-by-voting is supposed to work.

Now, it may be that #[] or <<>> or something else actually is "better" =
in some sense that cannot be articulated. But if there are no existing =
technical hurdles to be overcome with the already-voted-on-and-accepted =
solution of @@, what technically compelling reason can there be to =
revote?


--=20
Paul M. Jones
pmjones@pmjones.io
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php




--Apple-Mail=_A9951AEA-7D2B-43BB-BCF9-BFD40E23495F--