Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111520
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
CC: Levi Morrison <levi.morrison@datadoghq.com>, Derick Rethans
	<derick@php.net>, Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>,
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
Thread-Index:
 AQHWbvIBydbCX+rhJUWK/r8c7hnlt6k0kNaHgAALBwCAAAp7tYABDvUAgABUQtmAAAkjgIAAH1r+gAB81YCAACtXAIAApHfEgAA3bgCAACt1kw==
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 17:26:26 +0000
Message-ID:
 <BYAPR05MB6535EC677418C0C3540836DFDE400@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References:
 <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2008100935570.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <BYAPR05MB65355FFBB6717491995EEBF4DE420@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAESVnVqraG9V4VMrxrv5AOFX5Jt7Cx0-uo5L0doQEWcUVOdHkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BYAPR05MB65356FCC029CD06F49F528A0DE420@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABdc3WobP1HSRwcujd4=o4wv3QUp7gDT12KmMRQU1_wLj4YLuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BYAPR05MB65351C807797676BB08D8BDCDE430@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <5cc837df-ab47-628a-d29b-46d7933be973@gmx.net>
 <BYAPR05MB653522F9123B59F7E066BDB8DE430@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <3A7CECC3-CDEE-4852-BF4B-4EC7CA1BD538@pmjones.io>
 <CAAKU0u=VYh7D+XJ93dDdAxdJ8nEU8iPfeN0f=Xv9Qm=cCQKX6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <BN8PR05MB6532D19BEA11F44BAAD3FDD3DE400@BN8PR05MB6532.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>,<CAESVnVp5NHKKpMHt_7AAO8P9L2vL8UN4ynD5K4d9f23Jvr+s2A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:
 <CAESVnVp5NHKKpMHt_7AAO8P9L2vL8UN4ynD5K4d9f23Jvr+s2A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [LynIihxF2ZvF+Za/wiNeAvI8O5ZpWazo]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 45
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 781867e5-e59a-45ef-1abb-08d840772ca0
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CO1NAM11HT140:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:
 iWSqV5U6ACO9a/TvzHlfFDDjM4WMYWBRptRrmaq2oTpMXS1uN8OB/rPdlZan1c2gdcd+34p8TtpPZtkjrTiNBDQ51aU7vI/dOarGFcSFSh9wnVpzROzYLu05BhYuY8q4ZXq4/0FA3GB74Kok4GXPvzYQXNzizOvb3N66aDlnpw5dpeqAPzEWb4oWRt1OAs70YjU+QD99ChNapcm9bgpHbGQR7nse7EydKxaxfangaPqftunsnXxMmSs18mDIhXPN
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;SFS:;DIR:OUT;SFP:1901;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata:
 vbE88Myeyk10MOz6OxmYXRtt58bGttWnS4q61gSzUUrLbPNBSaqA5atFyurbuvWdQBaP90JwsZ9g5Xkit8E1F5gyKDB5uDFZ89NV4J0gZ8IsRu0s+lFJ56YoVzYqPAvq9wdkPBy6vnqgPL2IY3SSrg==
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: CO1NAM11FT054.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 781867e5-e59a-45ef-1abb-08d840772ca0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Aug 2020 17:26:26.6351
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1NAM11HT140
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
From: theodorejb@outlook.com (Theodore Brown)

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 9:48 AM Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:=0A=
=0A=
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 7:22 AM Theodore Brown <theodorejb@outlook.com> w=
rote:=0A=
> > I was very surprised that it went to vote less than six days after=0A=
> > the discussion period started, right after the weekend no less,=0A=
> > before I had a chance to submit my patch to include the @: syntax.=0A=
> =0A=
> Yes. Derick fucked up the *letter* of the rule here. His intentions=0A=
> were good and reasonable (God knows we've discussed this agonizing=0A=
> topic for far longer than two weeks), but taking the RFC in question=0A=
> in a vacuum, it is well under two weeks. By the *intent* of the rule,=0A=
> he's fine.  This has been discussed exhaustively.=0A=
> =0A=
> > How can the vote result be considered legitimate or binding?=0A=
> =0A=
> Exhaustingly, I do agree. Contentious times call for careful outcomes.=0A=
> =0A=
> > With this in mind, I'd like to respectfully make the following=0A=
> > requests:=0A=
> >=0A=
> > 1. Defer voting until the two week discussion period is complete=0A=
> > (Tuesday, August 18).=0A=
> =0A=
> I'd say as late as the 21st.  Minimize doubt in the process.=0A=
> =0A=
> > 2. Include a ranked voting option for @: and mention its pros and=0A=
> > cons (it is equally concise as @@ with no BC break, but is somewhat=0A=
> > harder to type). Patch link: https://github.com/theodorejb/php-src/pull=
/1=0A=
> =0A=
> Glancing at beberlei's reply, I do agree that @: is coming slightly=0A=
> out of left field. However, we're using a STV system, so might as=0A=
> well go wild with the options (within reason). HOWEVER, any option=0A=
> included is going to need the same care applied as you outline in #3=0A=
> and #4 below.=0A=
=0A=
Thanks Sara. So it sounds like voting will be stopped/reset until the=0A=
21st (a week from today), to give time to update the RFC and include=0A=
the @: syntax option in the STV polls?=0A=
=0A=
> > 3. Add a Backward Incompatible Changes section with examples of the=0A=
> > code that the different syntax options would break.=0A=
> =0A=
> More information is better than less. +1=0A=
> =0A=
> > 4. Add a Discussion section briefly summarizing the arguments that=0A=
> > have come up on list. In particular this should include:=0A=
> >     a) Tyson's examples of #[] changing the meaning of code in=0A=
> >        unexpected ways between PHP 7 and 8 (e.g. a parameter=0A=
> >        attribute would remove the parameter when run on PHP 7).=0A=
> >     b) An example of the downside of grouping, where it causes=0A=
> >        unnecessary diff noise when adding or removing a second=0A=
> >        attribute on its own line.=0A=
> > I'd be willing to help draft this section if the RFC authors so desire.=
=0A=
> =0A=
> I say "don't ask to ask", just send some suggested text (or put up a=0A=
> gist) and let them copy it in if they want.=0A=
=0A=
Okay, I drafted an initial summary of discussion arguments here: =0A=
https://gist.github.com/theodorejb/2d39eb6e13159fc749f728900edfd0d2=0A=
=0A=
> Honestly, the current end date is fine, because the intent of the rule=0A=
> is met.  However, I do like that you're seeking a solution which helps=0A=
> to put concerns to rest. The only part which irks me is that we have=0A=
> 50-some votes already cast that would be thrown out and have to be=0A=
> redone, and that's on what is already the 3rd vote on this syntax.=0A=
> I'm vote fatigued, personally.  However, we're going to have to live=0A=
> with this syntax forever once it's out, so we should believe that we=0A=
> believe in it.=0A=
=0A=
Agreed. Regardless of final syntax outcome, ensuring the process isn't=0A=
rushed can provide confidence that the right decision is being made.=0A=
=0A=
Kind regards,  =0A=
Theodore=