Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111361
Message-ID: <573869A2-CCD0-49CC-9953-E42257B6862D@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_065FDCBF-0CFC-4BFF-AD30-BD91C681FC04"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 14:33:03 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CANeKSiStbGZG+EOVDRfRuVo4MA7th16R-oP7V2xmPj3xHNxs_A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?C=C3=B4me_Chilliet?= <come.chilliet@fusiondirectory.org>,
 PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Benas IML <benas.molis.iml@gmail.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2008041440380.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <BYAPR05MB6535AE9831221566469C4503DE4A0@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2008060741110.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <20200806091749.64675445@mcmic-probook.opensides.be>
 <CANeKSiStbGZG+EOVDRfRuVo4MA7th16R-oP7V2xmPj3xHNxs_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change RFC 0.2
From: claude.pache@gmail.com (Claude Pache)

--Apple-Mail=_065FDCBF-0CFC-4BFF-AD30-BD91C681FC04
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8



> Le 6 ao=C3=BBt 2020 =C3=A0 10:11, Benas IML =
<benas.molis.iml@gmail.com> a =C3=A9crit :
>=20
> Ending delimiter MAY help us in the future.
>=20
> I really, really hate all of those arguments stating "that we should =
care
> only about the present, not the future" and that even though
> `#[...]`/`@[...]` might bring benefits in the future, we should still
> choose `@@`".
>=20
> This shows clearly that some people are basing their views on =
subjective
> reasons rather than being objective.
>=20
> As far as this discussion is going, I see pro-`@@` people just saying
> "Arghhh, let's keep @@, it doesn't bring any benefits that other =
syntaxes
> do but we don't need them anyways, let's not speculate future".
>=20
> It's like saying you can either go through door A and get a free car =
or
> through door B and get the same car and **maybe**, even an additional
> 1,000$.
>=20
> We are playing probabilities here but at the moment, no one has said =
any
> substantial argument why `@@` is better and thus, `@[...]` seems like =
a
> better option in the long term.
>=20


Note that, in a hypothetical future where the absence of delimiters =
would lead to (perceive or real) ambiguity, it will always possible to =
add optional ones, as in: `@@simple("thing")` and `@@{very("complex") =
thing}`.

=E2=80=94Claude=

--Apple-Mail=_065FDCBF-0CFC-4BFF-AD30-BD91C681FC04--