Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111282
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>
CC: Joe Ferguson <joe@joeferguson.me>, PHP Developers Mailing List
	<internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
Thread-Index: AQHWZO4EZIMJMorBK0qxy5SLq6JXCakdwKYAgAcyfACAAAiCUw==
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 16:02:17 +0000
Message-ID:
 <BYAPR05MB65350D2BCEABE488CB2F1A42DE4C0@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References:
 <CABj1Babv0bZyeNYBBOCZwG92NCT722G_tRt+hHZFxu4dHZckqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEPJduk=5_BCL+OVix1K86JEm3QTtyzVv=h+35uu7mr3mGX9Ew@mail.gmail.com>,<alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2008021601420.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
In-Reply-To:
 <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2008021601420.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [zonK3ORsjPXQTHnjujPuSRTJLtOPc7mH]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 45
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 70c8c06c-c5d4-45f8-2a47-08d836fd6e41
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CO1NAM11HT183:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:
 8AfeNbV5iuvp9P23WDhHa0NF7F3XSyPuiBtjwTOtv6fCCN59BxynuGyJb9iU8rVDGfDqwX/1hAVfW0Le7KOWClU6VpXaKqmPyTx7mfRs8glvFJFnPNrOZLk23qPBUCji8HYbEXoXu6LSk58EodMpZv0qWyjwymi4FuwM/DqRT371Lf5ZSKrLUtF3Oam7c1zrzeC3Ngb5SpZBDEQ6d0u4qWihfho8FtUiNbLhBaraAPxD9/9VGTgCj2v14pXXtHAH
x-forefront-antispam-report:
 CIP:255.255.255.255;CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:0;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE;SFTY:;SFS:;DIR:OUT;SFP:1901;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata:
 x1wqjJfxqwLsvQOEwKJ/h5B8d9PW+1+n704SN9o4LQswsPlHcJXdpMundJrTM1wD27Kz4TwfeNrJoF1VWlC1dw5l4xrFbsbzuISDLVMBYo8L0Z8ODWiTOuJp68JaKrXumz9/ZpFDWNjPJwmMpuctjw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT032.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 70c8c06c-c5d4-45f8-2a47-08d836fd6e41
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Aug 2020 16:02:17.6515
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1NAM11HT183
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
From: theodorejb@outlook.com (Theodore Brown)

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 10:06 AM Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:=0A=
=0A=
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, Benjamin Eberlei wrote:=0A=
> =0A=
> > Personally I favor #[] myself, but there has been a vote with a=0A=
> > substantial participation choosing @@. Overturning this democratic=0A=
> > outcome should require **significant** technical arguments, otherwise=
=0A=
> > this RFC would provide problematic precedent for any RFC to be=0A=
> > overturned by arbitrary revoting.=0A=
> >=0A=
> > The arguments the RFC brings forward don't convince me that we should=
=0A=
> > pick #[] over @@.=0A=
> =0A=
> However, one other thing just came to light where the "Shorter Syntax"=0A=
> RFC was unclear about: no longer supporting grouping.=0A=
> =0A=
> Changing the accepted << .. >> syntax breaks something that=0A=
> was accepted through "Attribute Amendments": grouping, as per=0A=
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attribute_amendments#group_statement_for_attribu=
tes=0A=
> =0A=
> The switch to @@ does now not allow for this, but we haven't spefically=
=0A=
> voted on we wanted to get rid of grouping. The Shorter Syntax RFC does=0A=
> talk about it in "Verbosity"=0A=
> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax#verbosity), but=0A=
> that's not a technical reason, just opinion about readability.=0A=
=0A=
Hi Dereck,=0A=
=0A=
The Shorter Attribute Syntax RFC explicitly mentioned that the @@=0A=
syntax would supersede the grouped attributes proposal: [1]=0A=
=0A=
> this proposal does not conflict with the Attribute Amendments RFC,=0A=
> with the exception that if the @@ syntax is accepted, it will=0A=
> supersede the syntax for grouped attributes.=0A=
=0A=
This was also documented in the Attribute Amendments RFC itself: [2]=0A=
=0A=
> This feature would be superseded by any other RFC getting accepted=0A=
> that changes the syntax.=0A=
=0A=
I agree with Benjamin that the democratic outcome of the vote between=0A=
<<>>, @@, and #[] should not be overturned unless there is a serious=0A=
technical problem with the implementation, otherwise we set precedent=0A=
for someone to overturn any RFC by arbitrarily re-voting until they=0A=
get the result they want.=0A=
=0A=
Best regards,  =0A=
Theodore=0A=
=0A=
[1]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax#unaffected_functiona=
lity=0A=
[2]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attribute_amendments#group_statement_for_attr=
ibutes=