Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111603 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46626 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2020 23:34:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 17 Aug 2020 23:34:44 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDDCD180510 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:35:43 -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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-qv1-f43.google.com (mail-qv1-f43.google.com [209.85.219.43]) (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, 17 Aug 2020 15:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-f43.google.com with SMTP id r19so8598950qvw.11 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:35:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=newclarity-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=sJrm2ODpsg+ecmXCRk9wCaj6kx0tI2gkqMBTq/iU0zY=; b=WiMbS/z8Z4jh/lvgAD2gG4R7slWy0H/aL5fE4BClpD51B8ajyLExD/ra1c//DSBjzY IEwYw5rq4FYQxLmMYfRdNVSSUT6GHVsp3icMPyX6AvSjPABwT4mon70ce5n3Qg2KT0Kp xwJX4EpX1GC5qFHhMmLhW+DBQhMKyCYlMr5rUQWUwRHIoPqHlWu+FpIpYGyqCvLTpFza DZLqj/tuNXjlctk10Z7yE98/tQljCPrdA3jdSNI79INP/D/8caEBmtBzgYOJ18EbsChx lAILOy9IF0Fhx9qZ2Lt6Pf0VrpInnWDSd6JC6IwmkZ0WtPDi1MJS/1sEDqykj1sFp4Qn 4xpQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=sJrm2ODpsg+ecmXCRk9wCaj6kx0tI2gkqMBTq/iU0zY=; b=WwRBzbOf+4VgN87qNL9bw3n5B/yBC2ALX/odxtElLNZFEeAY4qYADQrPtiREcOrqNN sUeJsdZ52pTZA0YWjhCnjyuljQf7UwYu/a/VenyAXgAtrxClrz1tY5JbDSbAj5pp8ecF DL6/owfeUnJyq70oHVCUdcJkuN2kY2ubU4NOlhQiog/QvhrgAuP7LLGEnTdLumPP/h1U cBngKVwHocps6c8qkaYLikLquguEINIt4ZyPbIFQeejGIdxA3K8nrnylGobgppAPnf+s sikp62bGtDRAG/tnsph2Y69/AHofZunTAt3DyP3c3+86E2BwlQ73b50A4MzMwlyHm9uA XTnw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533iudJ6T1N7aj+r1TDGKj58bLyWU5Aa6jONbVqY0kKEwmULMDL1 6RR/nuAN5YHM5qXmrSera24yMjntFimB2nqN X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxl+Ntmsqzfv4CRtTa+y7yJWGCyczHKQ/bNMfjMcdxxPACKGyye3yoC0UL0eHjIpE9yyXeolA== X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4ea5:: with SMTP id ed5mr16418563qvb.130.1597703740451; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:c0:c680:5cc0:d09d:9a95:b28c:af28? ([2601:c0:c680:5cc0:d09d:9a95:b28c:af28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l45sm21894444qtf.11.2020.08.17.15.35.39 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:35:38 -0400 References: <5cc837df-ab47-628a-d29b-46d7933be973@gmx.net> <3A7CECC3-CDEE-4852-BF4B-4EC7CA1BD538@pmjones.io> <7d6c42a4-53cd-5e38-4ffc-02fe490d66a3@gmx.net> To: PHP Internals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9A07334F-1A55-4E7D-88B5-7E6BABFB5E81@newclarity.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel) I have been following all the lengthy discussions on this topic hoping = the list would come to consensus. And I had been hoping someone would = call the following question but since no one else has here goes. The concept of adding attributes to PHP seemed to sail to acceptance = but, if you count the original RFC there have been three (3) different = RFCs each with the goal of setting or changing the decided syntax alone. For every syntax proposed there seems to be a contingent of people who = are deeply troubled by it. Given that once a syntax lands in an official = release of PHP there are not take backs, moving forward with any syntax = where people are so divided seems like a really bad idea.=20 If we care about future developers being happy enough with the decisions = made about PHP to continue choosing PHP that I would think it would be = incumbent upon us to find a syntax with a greater level of buy-in. Should we not: 1. Postpone inclusion of attributes until PHP 8.1 to ensure that we get = a syntax that is reasonable acceptable to large segment of stakeholders? 2. Optionally have an RFC to ask people to vote on disputed principles, = such as "Are ending delimiters important and thus are they required for = any selected syntax?" 3. Then open up the floor for more syntax proposals (that address all = the accepted principles in #2) in hopes to find something generally = acceptable to a larger segment of stakeholders with a goal of completing = by 8.1?=20 -Mike=