Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111539
To: Andreas Leathley <a.leathley@gmx.net>, "internals@lists.php.net"
	<internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
Thread-Index:
 AQHWbvIF7KrSF3HLUE2WaV22ixIGaKk0kVGAgAAKjACAABOogIABBcgAgABU7ICAAAh5gIAAIKyAgAB7g4CAACtXAIAAsyCAgAAoxQCAAEyxgIAADsEAgADkpgCAAAhnAIAAPwmj
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 15:07:33 +0000
Message-ID:
 <DM6PR07MB6618E0D524F8E7EDE57B87C2F9410@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References:
 <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2008100935570.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <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>
 <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2008141902160.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <BYAPR05MB65352D21FAA7EA37A9A0C37FDE400@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABdc3Wrd+WECJOXCmYu0Gq5VttVtTkDoO=-9SEP_+-p=qoNB4w@mail.gmail.com>,<7d6c42a4-53cd-5e38-4ffc-02fe490d66a3@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <7d6c42a4-53cd-5e38-4ffc-02fe490d66a3@gmx.net>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-CA
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [NqRA80v/BuG14rAXGslP6s8DdkeQWrxv]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 44
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c82b90ef-184c-4ae5-0adf-08d8412cefe9
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN1NAM04HT128:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:
 mUI5mPo3zIg2IvSNMJ7n4FoEF0gDDk1kWE39o0+QPVvYqmuJYhp4Eu4M5L1sqS+9T2dAyEbaiioNDWCcklIxC0ExzA/Ed+rl8j1UNlV/vqJW46Hmla4VLXnrXQTXazNN7+UeTHD2aaW3JkFXdoS6KWqAXbcLUbUdzwb9t0aT+rfPjev4S4DNhZECSHu+++pQbZXMiCYMwkT2xi5SLxzsOg3+dkWCF83D6Jfnj085mnyFFqnFSb7mYjWMEVBqt8be
x-forefront-antispam-report:
 CIP:255.255.255.255;CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:0;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE;SFS:;DIR:OUT;SFP:1901;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata:
 0MlKStcudwkgU3zVDCwY5TIeOEKtGicWePGtxrQZsN184VhraH5xd60SMYTr+687ZmekRyTcgOLyQC9m68eFc/5s0XJsDzVoNvmbLfvMWLXzGr/A4Na85WJe05xSbBLyrPhsE4w3xBj5dzuCZcOE8Q==
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: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SN1NAM04FT017.eop-NAM04.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c82b90ef-184c-4ae5-0adf-08d8412cefe9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Aug 2020 15:07:33.1459
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN1NAM04HT128
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
From: tysonandre775@hotmail.com (tyson andre)

Hi Internals,=0A=
=0A=
> Next to Theodore, at least 4 other people in this mailing list have=0A=
> stated that they think the RFC process should be followed as stated in=0A=
> the RFC documents (with proper time for discussion and voting, which was=
=0A=
> clearly not adhered to) and/or that there is important information=0A=
> missing in the RFC, which both should lead to a change of the RFC and a=
=0A=
> revote.=0A=
> =0A=
> I am a bit surprised at how casually the RFC process is interpreted - it=
=0A=
> is the basis of how decisions are made for PHP, yet multiple people have=
=0A=
> already stated they don't really feel like following the process as=0A=
> described/agreed upon, one of them Derick, a long-time member of PHP=0A=
> Internals, who I would think would want to be a role model for the=0A=
> process. Why even have an RFC process, if parts of it can be ignored=0A=
> depending on the mood of some of its more influential members? Does this=
=0A=
> behavior inspire confidence in PHP as a language?=0A=
> =0A=
> By the way, the RFC has not yet changed and is still incomplete as of=0A=
> now, and updating it at this time would probably not do much - because=0A=
> how many people re-read an RFC where they already cast the vote? It is=0A=
> unexpected that an RFC is heavily changed after voting has initiated -=0A=
> you would expect it to be complete at that time.=0A=
=0A=
I also want a revote.=0A=
=0A=
I agree that the RFC process should be followed,=0A=
the original RFC was incomplete and did not follow that process,=0A=
and updating the RFC would probably not do much.=0A=
From https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto=0A=
=0A=
> Listen to the feedback, and try to answer/resolve all questions.=0A=
> **Update your RFC to document all the issues and discussions.**=0A=
> Cover both the positive and negative arguments. Put the RFC URL into all =
your replies.=0A=
=0A=
The previous RFC https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax =0A=
by Theodore was a good example of documenting all of the issues and discuss=
ions at the time the vote started. The new RFC isn't.=0A=
=0A=
First, the RFC https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change =0A=
was started without even describing the terms in the syntax table,=0A=
or a discussion section, or describing the cons (and pros) of `#[]`. =0A=
Those and the discussion section were added later by others and the RFC aut=
hors,=0A=
after the majority of votes were made.=0A=
=0A=
I'd think that https://externals.io/message/111312#111334 was not covered a=
dequately,=0A=
as I mentioned in https://externals.io/message/111416#111508=0A=
I had also brought up prior to the vote that =0A=
"This RFC mentions objections to @@ but not objections to other syntaxes."=
=0A=
(in sentences) but received no reply or acknowledgement from the RFC author=
s.=0A=
=0A=
Second, the RFC does not link to the voting announcement or discussion prio=
r to the RFC announcement.=0A=
There have been over 85 emails in the vote announcement(https://externals.i=
o/message/111416)=0A=
and 46 in the rfc discussion (https://externals.io/message/111218) so far,=
=0A=
but neither thread was linked from https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribu=
te_syntax_change#references=0A=
at the time of writing or when the vote started.=0A=
So suggesting that everyone reading the RFC would be aware =0A=
of the objections in the RFC discussion emails or vote emails is hard to be=
lieve.=0A=
(I had tried to avoid repeating arguments I made in RFC discussion in the R=
FC announcement email. Others likely did so as well.)=0A=
**Instead, it would be more practical for the RFC authors to fully document=
=0A=
the positive and negative arguments before the vote started.**=0A=
=0A=
Third, this RFC results are currently close in the number of voters who ran=
k `@[]` before/after `#[]`,=0A=
so I'd expect errors made in the RFC to significantly bias results towards =
`#[]`.=0A=
The pros and cons of `#[]` vs `@[]` weren't described in the RFC with discu=
ssion and code examples=0A=
when the vote started and the majority of votes were cast.=0A=
I don't want major language votes made on the basis of an RFC with process =
errors or omissions that were known before the RFC started,=0A=
now or as a precedent for future votes.=0A=
=0A=
P.S. the RFC introduction also states that *"The main concern is that @@ ha=
s no ending symbol =0A=
and it's inconsistent with the language that it would be the only declarati=
on or statement =0A=
in the whole language that has no ending termination symbol."*=0A=
I had mentioned this in (https://externals.io/message/111312#111335)=0A=
that this statement failed to give concrete examples of problems (e.g. pars=
ing ambiguities)=0A=
that the authors believe could be caused in 8.0 or in future releases.=0A=
I'd also stated that I think an attribute is neither a declaration nor a st=
atement,=0A=
but that could be resolved by including the definition of declaration/state=
ment used by the authors.=0A=
There are various syntaxes in PHP with no ending symbols (`clone`, `public`=
, `yield`).=0A=
(I doubt changing this will make a difference since many people prefer `#[]=
`/`@[]` for other reasons,=0A=
but still consider that sentence to be misleading.)=0A=
=0A=
Thanks,=0A=
- Tyson=0A=