Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111228 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 8679 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2020 20:11:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 28 Jul 2020 20:11:19 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD9518053B for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:07:18 -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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-qk1-f171.google.com (mail-qk1-f171.google.com [209.85.222.171]) (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 ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-f171.google.com with SMTP id j187so19737616qke.11 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:07:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=benramsey.com; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=QErvRPlUf1+1dItHsdF7NI5C94X5+W5b88gj3X0lELw=; b=NwnOR/g880ndeQBXZpEDPEOU9J1TVPpN/8xOUTGvNvpOtkSwBECY+X3+nzxN52NteY 4JXZJWK0SzFRDXodCVmAbPVkjntkGRY3CmXfaKYjjK8kWDESO8a4uajhZwU+/3cy+Fca bwxQ5Pp/qGsQYFQLvL9LARZv7wRrup2bxolwRwWsq9ha9H5+d8N0TYf6A4Rn2MbtKRFu 8bHsRuFM2OntaU+C3zDGAKwyzTHoRnJ7nI0XqkRLiDbWqTTQ4ZrwlHG+qP7HqsZZ8RlD Cr/mhL3Kv5yKpwesmObvDx6q15GFp+OyeQt56y1eDINELGUQLOLCh1i6hSwIzlthW/AB xZtA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=QErvRPlUf1+1dItHsdF7NI5C94X5+W5b88gj3X0lELw=; b=GTscbzyeh3seEIjxXtToddS5XsWWaI9Xy4ls/NGQO3/Z3drngDMjSAgq+nU8JFA9G9 WdJJ5PeolYiYOtrpICF/oAyYHzCzlWmiCAeX32nfkgin2qAYBQuA15/O43+fLJwkpeTr DkgGGVreHGh2SKTMhbu1p0vPRKbsUqW4udHXc7vu5TJchNXjZ32te0eXIqQtshi06y3s xwU6JNlWECx0rz7P8GcdrtPyw+cai7cICF0/7HRcS4hng/UuIHvY/BHneGXgVQu3xoDd JrAa3btBcVtAYRTc0rY8gY2OJv4nbycgz+Lp6d6rRt8gacZhu5wc2JwWngoPQ++sjJ5K Kr4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530T8GKY00Jyj69ZbTBRCxTw8pjN1CKgyoKee+MZBKXJoRJfComm kGafF0gdioTMdV3nXXwv+fuDRw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw983RZ0YwdVpfKB4sBTfWvGXKIl8CaiibbFTDSXyAERddB3bXAxQ8KV5Y/whDsOGsfYxRGTA== X-Received: by 2002:a37:68c1:: with SMTP id d184mr29538361qkc.62.1595963233556; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.42.76] (h69-21-156-190.lvrgtn.dsl.dynamic.tds.net. [69.21.156.190]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p186sm23518304qkf.33.2020.07.28.12.07.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_58BF133B-C8F5-4A6E-9EB9-8B35C1D6F775"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.15\)) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:07:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <79DC1760-6BBC-45E2-A5CC-0E0C076204B7@pmjones.io> Cc: Theodore Brown , Joe Ferguson , PHP Developers Mailing List To: "Paul M. Jones" References: <79DC1760-6BBC-45E2-A5CC-0E0C076204B7@pmjones.io> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.15) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey) --Apple-Mail=_58BF133B-C8F5-4A6E-9EB9-8B35C1D6F775 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > On Jul 28, 2020, at 13:55, Paul M. Jones wrote: >=20 > 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? IMO, there is no compelling reason to revote other than the fact that we = have no process for what to do in this situation. However, given that we = used ranked-choice voting in the last RFC, the logical choice (to me) = seems to be: choose the runner-up in the event that the winner is = disqualified. So, if there are extenuating circumstances that result in `@@` being = disqualified, we should automatically default to the runner-up in the = ranked-choice outcome. Cheers, Ben --Apple-Mail=_58BF133B-C8F5-4A6E-9EB9-8B35C1D6F775 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEAREIAB0WIQToXQMR3fpbrPOmEOewLZeYnIwHGwUCXyB3XwAKCRCwLZeYnIwH G6NJAP0fmQmgx9n0qmz4jOQbHwz59Z4tSEG6b5aCSggZJxZpiAEAl+sucXmIqkrD ca19aqLmHr1RrhqF9unty/QN3UGswAQ= =VIvz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_58BF133B-C8F5-4A6E-9EB9-8B35C1D6F775--