Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111628 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 66131 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2020 10:22:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2020 10:22:30 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40BB1180089; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 02:23:53 -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=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 [212.227.15.19]) (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; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 02:23:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1597829030; bh=0E0lRqn+kBQ8Tk4bDg7BPUyKZQhP5X+f3E87nKw1HEM=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=MkqtTa+I67ZiHZDqk22ZXpL1Gdodm86uH+T6bOewISmqNlHdoAojLbhr/AznLSktW n70AURF080ixHuSjEwHyZ4p+Vk6g7EpW5zlLaI0bmMKH2bl/uZZL+ZxRpetzLSMSH7 zIOLPBq4Xv0ZnkKSTHkfcY5tPVgQR4Ay4TC7cUEg= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.178.120] ([24.134.51.41]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MMobO-1kOkk61lAa-00IpQh; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:23:50 +0200 To: Benjamin Eberlei Cc: Derick Rethans , PHP Developers Mailing List References: <642e48c2-eccc-19d8-99fd-888062a6232e@gmx.net> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:24:06 +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:cpE1IJgQy/8WWXMuDUksRQQfjSBQ4KN6w5EX82ZUMFVEbyvcgaF FnuHWCMtl3YBKwDYEkUqrAoO+uc13RULX7rQJO+nltUq3ZQyW5VTUyRYHQ6Kl8MqDxIr3ig 83LHzRUnlPXgH00t0LCzJ7qOaM3GwurMDZn8w1GdBd05H7yC35/y/vU3km/a8cymuzpA9kl ICQtYALxxG9XKkndpsq2g== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:YcrcclstARU=:d5q7O7OeCGTX8ejF4kK+xu HB8vpcg+AQlX5M1KMUjDS7sW6+MnRaCeLmsvEMI19T0u+l0UOKNNDde5PH0L8o0Px3a7RA4xl +zwCyLM+cgrT6zV/KaamuUJgDaZDMZm1cg2D9Usdnr3bM3gFiII6VaSETRC6O9011L/LjIBj1 EqVNYSpsRV1niSt0DqZ7fN6A5CFkcd3IM+oAHa7WpXRHXJSgbVIaH+Hl+JfGbidKoJnYhxL4O Az9410Y7HTSyzxKlqFgYmZLG5ojmeQINCfqz/O24/ZFQ+3xDYx4LmktefPWMgCTzEc6iS+OWT C2rIiI+xbWjrUXcRVkOs5wtmk31WXkZ/s7+wTfZXUQxc4CAXpVBwe8YqJgBJJJ9SrjVVb6HlV 8mBuK5qi5IkzIQRfp6Sr33iewoy1pWyI5GEf9rgx2IXMmR/hW6RbyyVbpREJze5Wg/ak4CmOG 7ItAjl3FkfMg8hAi85M9xfP1FC7GPrKBEiwZ0aylF9B/C88vT7bRD8gpxuwAnNyvUgdcj+Wl+ tYjlR98BmfLio8NpBMSuapmyD1D0KuMHBIY8BvYOGZj39DV2vX78OWBTCuAc3Y/hzXou/DZvq YM7BCszAk5Ftz+sTDHcYhkGWFKRQptFO5JonpmHDOQvu99zJc6rGCGto1Zw23/wHVLuPcXsny xTfJuopNJJISM9Cvh7Q0/wNhD3fpH8c0fKJI4it9XjSDspgmy+5Ih+r1WKqbvf+PeHyyPWcvb rrPFtNhctsLGmRJwlm2gmzUCWckso7UGaHpqNq67hK9YUF37nAsmEeEz0t9g4KAdjUv4sk6hw 23arySn5nwilatN4bJGQRncuDJ9Gex0pK1FDdKuvzv9+Tvxj4yplSXml/GGoMb7eeUeCGk4RO 6GyEArsB715EG9LWaZOhMmFoRJqKWesnBa4wu0uMxlXOck2u9sPK0SG6jxh3Wot7AdjNrbLEl qxlY5yOyySc+1pL5X+uFf0f68OIaYxQfFjy5aVER+ZNUOosmR6MZ1NoMIQSICc71yHGFpYe40 T7IZbC5Sz7LpzXhWm+miJgofkmPaeWTRN9dgb8ygkfPRt2TYjySs2mV1EJBrKi6/R6/HUY0pT cFjWO7K0bEBQ8cZvvv23PzfRx2zct00fx9dCQBD6pInGDRHcWAtNtIBp17u6QXYd41IReEYHp KqbbXJHahLa53NjjvmpvJh9ESNBOla2HP/TZUZ8NKaAGk8US/PX8U/kSXnnXZ0a4AoyID8Z0L AtEWRUqzsEtRP2uB4SV5z1CYXOv2v8T3CAamsyw== Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change RFC 0.2 From: a.leathley@gmx.net (Andreas Leathley) On 19.08.20 11:12, Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > With the choice being @@ or @{} - nothing would stop someone (not me ;-)= ) > to make an RFC for 8.1 or later proposing to add a second syntax. Sure. If @@ would end up winning again (who knows at this point), at least one positive thing is that @{} could be added later without having a BC break, which reduces the potential future benefits of an enclosed syntax, as it is still possible if needed.