Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111472 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 75943 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2020 16:33:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 2020 16:33:21 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D111804AA for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 08:32:48 -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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY, 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-il1-f174.google.com (mail-il1-f174.google.com [209.85.166.174]) (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 ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 08:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-f174.google.com with SMTP id z17so10962729ill.6 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 08:32:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=RI08/2dzYtTAhK6A43TX+vKXeTB8Sdkzms9pgDNDxzg=; b=G6PcLQ/K4/XpIpcUF+S0sT7aC3uPXAQ1elrF/ZjJnJWbziioiXJGQz7FlxQx0Aihw3 2fs7fxmVzU69bGnhtoJKiu9D/3gARgVXrEGVBMDrA4sC6kmZ3LmZLbGeGaKa2D0oWy/O EqSlnf83pdSiD6ojVGmM7eLuMW+oLuVv0Gu+v5ji2xCAnLi8rb6H6IBUp6iq2l+X+/hL 83tUs9RFiJdhaYIel3Ow8T62vS5SYNC1uhZQzj6s8ZAZvR8JI5OorsX6CnJUb8SZUQ6c 52V6H5Lzj9gtdmd7WfTP9Op+Nl6je3gt8NrD3foELHKGnNaVmwWqp6APJgjiWrKTntIY Ztsw== 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=RI08/2dzYtTAhK6A43TX+vKXeTB8Sdkzms9pgDNDxzg=; b=HWiIl/aSwXznaCxrOP6/IBDDDRKCcCVyNr3SoQ5THumNLHznDvviKqpdoofUhTgON9 1Jn4KxWRoZLHpuWSuNvLqqrttUBEWe75DBdfXK7Qwd8BVSZ2jMAkaMsS/fggM0HsLS+f iLc/Pp3QR/7UtUSXxRoJkiB3AiSQ2ZWrJVbwHLKo8WOyx1uOc/H3MOI7cmMKFmhPMMkG CzPml91aJ2rvW+cWHeJrDNXmqGuExHlDmzd06CiyzqVPZzMnDojsCIUu+sD9dkUAJF1c pKTG4cQ2SlIlDxFx38Ns+dXLMLxMGUzMx8pe//pb0Xpayp+GXPSDg74uUeeSAa5OYPbI BiYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530yobEEbw3vgQ+7z6HZDrUAAdgmoqLKjjxfbMDd5klfGzo7uX8T 0f0QmbANg1UkzQCJwa7DF13952KfOz0ZhzZWj+FiiA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw+y7XFGEHCnOV0ux0NpSsmnllbteX1zHMbCqID9iD4bHSIxTHaYbR7s7WIY7Y2KXeCwGup/XtbwSwTtTKj4Xo= X-Received: by 2002:a92:d306:: with SMTP id x6mr24732157ila.229.1597159966586; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 08:32:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:32:33 +0100 Message-ID: To: PHP Developers Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000753c8b05ac9bc824" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) --000000000000753c8b05ac9bc824 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 16:07, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com < guilhermeblanco@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to explain my rationale. Most of the time I end up using > "#[todo] Whatever" while documenting my code... my intentions are "# > [todo] ...", but you know... missing that space char doesn't break > anything today... > In any case, BC is broken and FC would also not work. Now I assume > it's a quite rare scenario where someone is doing: @[...] where > suppressing is needed, especially when we check against the #[...] > case. > This feels a bit arbitrary to me: the way you've worded it here makes it sound like because you use one and not the other, you've assumed that one is more common than the other. I've personally never used either, but can see situations where both would arise, and have absolutely no idea which is more common, and what the impact would be. My vote, if I had one, would remain under "No" for this re-vote. There seems to be no reason to allow this vote, but not allow another one next week with a new suggestion, and nothing objective to choose between the syntaxes. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] --000000000000753c8b05ac9bc824--