Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111492 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 24022 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2020 16:43:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 2020 16:43:44 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432F21804AC for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:43:26 -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=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,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 ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:43:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1597247003; bh=JIGz7lXJH1nSCklOOJs48ZRvtTMlSv+zpUwmKNssDSY=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=PWapvYnpd6bD9m4CXJl8NCAyPCbDtPKVFLttMhtFjl66YmF3X/SZIelkZaELxpYqc /5xp9UUofGF4ru/4zXVOtw6EDNd/HHvHJuHL/zcbxXus7E5LCWQwQMruMoFZ5sC0Uz s4dz3Vmj94o4xvewMwgs5A4ePjiPiwsX0M9wpTEQ= 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 1MDywu-1jw11T2QFg-00A1Mb for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:43:23 +0200 To: internals@lists.php.net References: Message-ID: <6f8e574f-abf5-b832-e81b-862df8267d2f@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:43:39 +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:EVKYhb367qcrq85dq6rpvX+Ifts+SFrEy0G1VAJI2KJT2sr4Sna uPmCr7DAk4ZTc5XwMrkktxKVJeJlWvOAxKiNPbykiw5o8Q5uKwcRoMKK4O407oio8fAMWTS ugRA3QtuKCVq615D3/NCd5o0lSiSE7jzZWCHoHHwwlXPYwTPHYVPIZcUBR7dprpZmdaxzCG p5dlMg8vUfyv2UZxq9eKA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:GCBoHUHkOP4=:ZzveXtHMCqQp+7kglIpH9p eS/xyfStsRVAb8dohAH5rA2CRhfc++42zT02YKHBO1h7Gz+sRspVkOpG2ZEBLe2DPsmez2R0H rIONfycyHogdHDN3EWwpiOdlb4dBmqqsHpJv5dD/f0745EHjyylE+42jbCAYQMqsml6Vig8Np HE5lDt/mvASVgwFZN1HVh/Q6R89uI7Ibcx6x25DunolaHPnw+f76mpe89X2SxDyf38tr8RoLC CtwyF93Tqtz9PYFKda5LWzET5Kk5NBNj+dZ7in+WWVpsXtc2QTeyJ07OGzEmWkdQ5veGkUE6r 0VeG5axhjgl6gX2SAJ12zUPhDoItQ6uozYQglUnZko8WG9WOiwwDAGtctaUzpg3FIDjf+0S6l 95Z9yJnapfbduRm70Tmpo9soWLQK9RRCZjhdABzvbc8Zu68gebBo7dahE2fNI6HkWPRbvP9fu dVy3xJ/MmUfUj33xNK6bWfAC20UHnIIt6AwtNfLfOFQTY3P5EbGKhtOuJ+unBAbxlopWUdoZa b5i6kpKCcZ3vJLM8qCmfKD65bmylO3YPBP4ySRYEMEb2wMjhS1Snokk3tINUivqJYYTC6LgkV TeD5UEx75VM2CK6c6O57pMEcPztTXdAH/exmS+Kg5f2dpHGZNf71t3xob05YS139vsNSaDEMv +wjV/V5p6axKqjHlDFI7KWRx5DgxHwx6yFflxRlMiHII7b/a9ebiwQJ+P/GK/qqPY77umWgEQ zX+u14tlNHaeGP0yarmsVPYUrGwNEOwIN3CR0YaljWpNnRfTlL9oZAD+rQ6KYg6fVaKi8aXr3 Bx08pfO9HpyTgeUvbr+xcIdD5wZxoujkgDVHZBFxGn2pBdj4b+bWJKwWND6oHkq8dESACbekk OLUCtJj/IMCl5fep84GKI39JRoqvD/882JqMcC6TVwBcnLXL6AGMgGjlaE/k8q+HKZYHD68hh tbPTmSuy58t2MtCAAh6SX/g8F5W/gyuuA3yIg44san6fXiBYjrLBcY8jGQA5Le9VBpuWK/rXQ HEeFdwRFsVxf6JE0Cz3Oe1JVl5/GIWC0Vi/eFvGOXyHik9OAzRWuQCyh2IZj6VCay2pQnKCu2 FKKdHZRy7jIannpr11sH7ZKBvNODjTFNzhXgbQEeh2R7mi4miQ3qlZVPJmCm8xVjVmDMMMp4e gUl22qfL6V0EcTjPLLBsjPyL9tGFmIzT61/lc/KFkQj+Cs31qlwrM+eGZbdxs0/U2/HGFIQyd AxpXI4Q7XO+j+5DO90HsgTAneDehRJyW0L3qUhQ== Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: a.leathley@gmx.net (Andreas Leathley) On 12.08.20 17:25, Sara Golemon wrote: > Changing the syntax isn't a feature. It's a refinement. One of the thing= s > our long release process provides is a chance to be absolutely certain > before we introduce syntax we'll come to regret later. The current RFC does not discuss the BC breaks of each syntax (which seems very important to any syntax changes), it has not taken into account the discussion, and the RFC itself was being discussed for only 6 days (of which two days were on the weekend) before it started its voting process. The discussion was still very much ongoing when voting started. Shoehorning in a syntax at the last minute seems like the opposite of a controlled and long-term release process, at least if there is an ongoing discussion. Looking at the RFC votes now, the opinions are clearly split, which is not a good sign - at least in the previous RFC @@ was a clear winner. Changing syntax again now for the third time could just as well be the decision that will be regretted later on, instead of finding a better concensus in due time.