Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111263 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25861 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2020 14:32:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2020 14:32:12 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E951804D0 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:28:35 -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=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-io1-f41.google.com (mail-io1-f41.google.com [209.85.166.41]) (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 ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-f41.google.com with SMTP id v6so12939274iow.11 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:28:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joeferguson-me.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Jn3yI8QAkBpSYW4tJZxEHPAvgJBXLZLrgab9LFmqRIo=; b=EQy73VZw/Kz67AMXRaA6dpJiIhRidY2O6VtPzxOn054cK9tKc/quvorLR1vd2xbyk0 jtmtH3nK70ZAztkZfKdcHQSlpc8A5G2YIqBoUzlfV3yYA4K8QGpsSyOvL3MIINf/iMxc kn2V5zzGr6NdYL/SNgm3oCKzc41FKr+o9odS3MUxPBHs9DkoU8AsSkbWlSs1nkmbaY/e HHVSzhxp3gRDJOLjMv7E3jW2TGSF5cb3Gc2VrnCkxn80seeiZaRagx43s6VaUn4sKOsd u962jyEmrvlqWS7IkrQinqSetd9ktUbTQJoviovx9f+H8jUoGLw6NDzO+CbSk+6+7m8K T3wA== 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; bh=Jn3yI8QAkBpSYW4tJZxEHPAvgJBXLZLrgab9LFmqRIo=; b=LEttqmUe/mqlj1PEsWY/FKdeNP/A7e4L8l2+/wYUsF+jpybwRtiQedZAdWv1gxXdRQ HMk/h06CEJXTxYbhHSoLCdo9skpKgocGOHaPLLfqjbdDHrldCmY7/TDqPh4eUDHxQvK+ yZPwx+cY239goNpEl3wfZzeHIBKw9yz2HbH9Sk39LZA1CbN5fFjI7ceezJVpd9suoNOR Q7O/73JhZ0ztDVliRrDZUczQvSiFCPUyJRaBVTyN94SesiGYYfo7NkLsjXKoCLfFtbub SUM6p4YNhWP9iQqZ5ISM9UNT5gkMd3gjaY/tGam3DJR4foEup/Ennb4hTKYJkCHyQ/xn SHcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Z30ht11O62THFv6rm4MSa4zg3CCWOkuhPL7VP4zApjlg6tdWG +WXWDzW+D+5g13tWQvqIXl6271fazeeRoroEkvUTHqYJxbx7Tw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlfRJeYAiRP0ajeuCa8uNFL2Djmx+EiPvrl9LPxN2FIHXbQigS9ILhOAJ0Ut/pxfLek9/YytU3jYcW9n/wKu4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:221a:: with SMTP id n26mr33773346ion.170.1596115707678; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:28:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:27:52 -0500 Message-ID: To: PHP Developers Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c705c905aba8a56c" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: joe@joeferguson.me (Joe Ferguson) --000000000000c705c905aba8a56c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:50 AM Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > I think it has become clear that we need to revisit this syntax question > again, including the elephpant in the room of delaying this feature to 8.1. > > The reason is not only Joe's desire to revote on #[], > > No, I *do not* want to revote. This RFC simply takes a formal approach to approve the syntax that came in 2nd based on concerns raised with the @@ syntax. Now that it seems the technical concerns around @@ have been resolved by another pending, passing, RFC, I'm still here wanting us to talk about the impact of @@ on static analysis tools. Apparently, internals doesn't care about these projects. I care and I'm trying to help. I'm not trying to revote until I get the vote I want. I'm just a dude that had some free time while on vacation when he saw a chance to contribute. I see two possible outcomes: Release Managers collectively should decide what we do to move forward. Either accept @@, we'll decline this RFC and we can move on to the next nearest bikeshed. OR If Release Managers don't want to, or can't collectively make a decision then this RFC should go to a vote and we'll see what 2/3s of the group want. I'm fine with either outcome. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change -- - Joe Ferguson JoeFerguson.me osmihelp.org --000000000000c705c905aba8a56c--