Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111608 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 20535 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2020 11:53:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2020 11:53:50 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F7D1804C0 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:54:57 -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,HTML_MESSAGE,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-wr1-f52.google.com (mail-wr1-f52.google.com [209.85.221.52]) (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, 18 Aug 2020 03:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-f52.google.com with SMTP id a15so17788483wrh.10 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:54:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=beberlei-de.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RJZC1JccNRXOxHY2hhNE5cCuKxcqs2MBeKjlcrQezT8=; b=HJJFKms3uV2jfwT/Ypd68cFoXOb94KTiIKRfxHNiPAOM1WsN98Ll6dvXyN1u9AUfRq DYVCMkS3+8bx2G6xZaGwUAcpxLxZIgwE4BKAgd4ylRlgwfv2DMPSSKm1xAE/iGbxN997 g42Xm5B+ZVDjiIxmMq2+M0TMhgHoiq18bpfUFPXtMboeUpPrrbUwAr/FDYqHXw7z41sl WPQBVe8LVAdjySaUJAnpfwzlfZ4Fk5seuxtV7MsmZvKXO3cnkrs6hZUQdniZhuBrpUeV NktD1yMiiOJMLDJiZJmY5onl2EpHG4ds0pMRnWEB6gkGWDr0RD/CFtEPEo+eLQwDn5yY K4kg== 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:cc; bh=RJZC1JccNRXOxHY2hhNE5cCuKxcqs2MBeKjlcrQezT8=; b=clKNYJPzL79F48+lGn2QgbcUJJK0B+Z6tNXwC6L1kZLPbIVII9UULw3TNw/uV4mR3N buuj6ME3W/YEltm2M9OF61ZUKTGkgBa83uRJiWCK4lXcVT4aRc9WLeT7G4qyzbrWWfE7 i5rE8P26dF3d0v8YEkomuy9a+UNW7kaIWJI4EsEnhaS75gpBc8ypW62ccE0vLcS/dggv RVN6LlAjg9CsMhWsrd8g7Q2hEa1ZrA388aqmnuTFh6gq9aAvgmvi91V1U+ogoCQlbeGS KyO4kYEoQ42XJbFp2nEPgLluYRModYVTF3uCvj/hJXZkMwQwPHim8nmIxy4M56M0m5xn Sw4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530BKKD2juTEUchzVnfd9g0irFNMqxVuvnPp8FgDPaZH+0tlcI0J k48M9a3gn40uZL/3e1JUSOUm2TYx+qQIM23+YYOyM6ylL1snhA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzqYEFPAQWWlSuLMFAZsjavODz0Ylw3PNVRObYnvzzmwlLtOxHlmuYO4ql89Bvp9LBTKHy6zd4ITbzPn4WN8uw= X-Received: by 2002:adf:dcc8:: with SMTP id x8mr20736154wrm.16.1597748095169; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:54:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5cc837df-ab47-628a-d29b-46d7933be973@gmx.net> <3A7CECC3-CDEE-4852-BF4B-4EC7CA1BD538@pmjones.io> <7d6c42a4-53cd-5e38-4ffc-02fe490d66a3@gmx.net> <9A07334F-1A55-4E7D-88B5-7E6BABFB5E81@newclarity.net> In-Reply-To: <9A07334F-1A55-4E7D-88B5-7E6BABFB5E81@newclarity.net> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:54:44 +0200 Message-ID: To: Mike Schinkel Cc: PHP Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a7540105ad24b77a" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: kontakt@beberlei.de (Benjamin Eberlei) --000000000000a7540105ad24b77a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:36 AM Mike Schinkel wrote: > 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. > > 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? > All the technically complex decisions are done, tested and decided. The syntax question is still open, but not critical from a technical implementation POV. All patches regardless of syntax are extremely similar, just replacing symbols. The non-technical implications and future related questions are what is up for decision. The arguments for or against these categories are by now driving in circles. Postponing to 8.1 does therefore not bring additional value. A decision has to be made and we have enough time for that. > > 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?" > By voting for a syntax, these questions are answered implicitly. > > 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? > > -Mike > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php > > --000000000000a7540105ad24b77a--