Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111432 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 68079 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2020 14:57:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Aug 2020 14:57:03 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53D6180502 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:56:14 -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=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, 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 mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (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 ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:56:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1597067772; bh=cjXRHObB0OIRadvsGljzpPtK25bkk0n+of/0HXyA9bI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ExaXfN12fwO1H5e/7IVLkQxowT7cSLoBG5Ky9aAfI7TdjA70AXQPqA2C97HRDA/AV T9DGKt/k545tvIIsW/iCMamenyThvYZNaTg3I4snBTq1ohXWt2B3RnQo8Goazt2BZs G1MkWm6JbTwOJR8aVEqfiPdTstAwBSzGX1+/Tj38= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.178.120] ([24.134.51.41]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M7sHy-1k1Gf808Sg-0051lQ for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:56:12 +0200 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <5c73b8d0-f477-83a0-4bd4-2fb8d11ad416@seld.be> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:56:26 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:oEDi8JDG2QIsza/dq72uQDws4KZHOaYQj5vaLZrfLKoOOK1Uzrz pO0e8De2MCBz44YXpxnKAfX+NKVQucZmrt+hncDrHNis12Nm6SbCzl6i2sdpJ5T4nwN5sep fzusZIxEa5nRbrJtbgOJzy9SQp/1DMYWSJCmR0H8fomRCohYjjidUBTC49HXI+BsBKSYtZw sTRkhOC9kgcKa73ZFEo6w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:JHKYCaqqVRk=:vbLu2CKDQYAMzbo3Kzn2kS jyVPbY7JumwQ+Fbae1RLxE1UsAVd1YBduR32ZjhTRF5Eb6Cs3F/WDBUKaBl7cEBVoCbJel77A QA0hva+IeBXw3ErWVOe21dqt09FTdcfAO7PSTAGrCGnUHdpBOMt+PGoArGrO7zMtkqgTTVuMT 2HXNKxkma/DPkOjO2YnUWCjS/xviyYR3/Z6y6xFYyLvY2WY2yKWgdBFmfhL6NwuExRDnrzgrI 3yzuYyuwcXc5o/nvbNpAiICL8oRuJ9tfXOvW0uWJ2MwKUhotXJRiATEoQVNmoua8ETSRzPJI4 mtpEaiJP0F8SQGS6pJUfPiiBxulcxhWUplgLqWkaTLZUgb/WHm6MXxJ5sgU5TVN++4o9FdAZI t+Ovp20A0U5bpxoqLYn8TqBO6eNA+AuDU8DN9Kiq5YNZSM6OJC+s5hGYnS/AbEwvo1/RR0Mgs PHxI6HRGPeMbizl+yVCcEkcyx4L78bAyYO6S47VUeTgFKguOZ4EkprRRKeVxE2G47M6R03I8w cX2xOU2RIDmaOED9d2G1lvxhRxUzIEIeOdqwbC5BcimdOfvtWXM9wA/xrFCrQt6c3833wx6Ay cCjdK8L/+mXg20YY30MVZgYsHlKI8TwJyghXA/TNvojPCzdLOWYJs75oDeHY34/82tGVVxHn9 hgNJJqwpD2XPgLeiqvxZq+4i21CJsm5/3rWrTvHeoDsGkAr+abFVQ2QaNkkxLU+mdFGku4EGu iBIQ9IQRIYffrwDnls9SeWnbBnE6KM8n9i1Sw51gf546ZI7aa/b0KpsBAS9RCJfJUKG2jnkYS 3yrhTprZR+//QBNbtET1Ig9z8UWue5mjXpL/0ma+2VFN0yUbITIP29mL8IprWll6TdocJVuII lWj8i282uNx9foEkfGUfkN3eyWMew824WubMWv37Ry5J/zIMnoZDvKmC0oMoLIGx8ac/CBG0U jco/Isdcunnr13wT0OC1vg//edlUFc4UN7PK7NKGZYLO1wm5i+gYVyOQ6UaBMCVYgNWdDoNNj Kw00Q8VD5RhBMdC9KpnGOOo6csUmsy+mQbUySdCFJ1attilAvWrsvejeslTA32ogLtn4N2sDJ GvqcOm+36uRiA+U/q1CtpS+hYCf8kaLvvjyeZNmRV8VGCTBOsg/zeXhBCBBaBZI/F+k8dBdUS Z8jPEBDqAawuR+xQUliT9vrb8aUyTBBBc9c+2/1iqwuT1cl2pQuDlihN7cZs59rPgDfxk++oB jXiIAxrkvrW8d/MhkqMsv233o8cCJVuLZc8OZPg== Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: a.leathley@gmx.net (Andreas Leathley) On 10.08.20 15:05, Markus Fischer wrote: > Personally, and never gave it much thought TBH, the `@@` AND `<<`/`>>` > in fact is the most "unreadable" version to me because duplicate > occurrence of a single character somehow creates a noise _for me_, > > I don't feel eligible to have a vote, but based on that and certainly > aware IDEs in the future will help with this, I would vote for > _anything_ not duplicating characters, i.e. favoring `#[]` or `@[]` It is a pity that syntax with ending delimiters and syntax with no ending delimiters are now mixed in the discussion, instead of first finding a concensus if delimiters are even needed or what advantages/disadvantages they have. Because there are many alternatives in terms of syntax - looking back at the very first vote about attributes the @: syntax doesn't seem so bad, if no ending delimiters are needed. In the new RFC all alternatives to @@ have delimiters and it is suggested having them is good, yet the possible advantages of delimiters are never explained, ideally with some real-world examples showing why delimiters would be good to have.