Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111230
Message-ID: <0BAF2BAE-3C51-40BF-95F5-7CFC4531FBE0@benramsey.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_C09B6E7D-10DF-4F31-A590-02B6BBC34AE5";
	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 14:15:01 -0500
In-Reply-To: <E8F090F9-5B1D-445F-99F1-CD6795B675E1@pmjones.io>
Cc: Theodore Brown <theodorejb@outlook.com>,
 Joe Ferguson <joe@joeferguson.me>,
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
To: "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones@pmjones.io>
References: <CABj1Babv0bZyeNYBBOCZwG92NCT722G_tRt+hHZFxu4dHZckqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BYAPR05MB6535E638D874FB9D6653411CDE730@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <79DC1760-6BBC-45E2-A5CC-0E0C076204B7@pmjones.io>
 <F4892712-BACE-4A0A-BA45-3F251108AA1C@benramsey.com>
 <E8F090F9-5B1D-445F-99F1-CD6795B675E1@pmjones.io>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
From: ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)

--Apple-Mail=_C09B6E7D-10DF-4F31-A590-02B6BBC34AE5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

> On Jul 28, 2020, at 14:10, Paul M. Jones <pmjones@pmjones.io> wrote:
>=20
>> On Jul 28, 2020, at 14:07, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Jul 28, 2020, at 13:55, Paul M. Jones <pmjones@pmjones.io> 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?
>>=20
>>=20
>> IMO, there is no compelling reason to revote other than the fact that =
we have no process for what to do in this situation.
>=20
> What "situation" is this, exactly? AFICT we have a working =
implementation using @@, with no technical hurdles to surmount. Or have =
I missed something that now prevents @@ from working per its RFC?


The new RFC outlines reasons why `@@` is a sub-optimal choice.

TL;DR:

* current parser conflict (which can be worked around)
* possibility for further (as of yet unknown) parsing issues
* a closing ] makes it easier to extend Attributes with more syntax,
  and at the same time not be at the risk of running into parser
  conflicts
* userland analysis tools have difficulties parsing `@@`


Cheers,
Ben

--Apple-Mail=_C09B6E7D-10DF-4F31-A590-02B6BBC34AE5
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-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQToXQMR3fpbrPOmEOewLZeYnIwHGwUCXyB5NQAKCRCwLZeYnIwH
G2i5AP94jfgv16rYN0mGuZzaGCqxHLjLM1Q0F2yxKadGDqRwkAD+OeyjCO0LBar6
xP+8IkBIbbub1byxVOB9TRSS3jNS//c=
=cgCS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_C09B6E7D-10DF-4F31-A590-02B6BBC34AE5--