Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111936 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 63700 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2020 09:11:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2020 09:11:59 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8DF21804B8 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 01:23:04 -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=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-ej1-f42.google.com (mail-ej1-f42.google.com [209.85.218.42]) (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 ; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 01:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-f42.google.com with SMTP id gx22so4171345ejb.5 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 01:23:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZBDsvHYXAbom6N7Tid1B1nyB3usIo+ophB/7PzKPjI0=; b=pTLAYEOj6Z2nDHQpCBJzI0kbRl3mIIpWWn1LE05kNOP8h/4e9lSpDawjOfq0z6IkTH 2fR2XlRvpQ99Jj7BgdAAnRFTpjuRhdk1svvOfBCHbioNhydr3R+zxNyI5j/q8wVipiJw bp/6uWPbmlL27085bacx+TK7iAWIR9821CVVfmFzD4Ia9NikJSBZSt9gk+49IylHQJnQ mzQFCUOuaJN+9e8IyfSdIgunbzC+LCPUuSz++IZ3+PGpAHlDG3FdA70F/UlaGOmwh1SB G3xFWUNwfTJ+99LfFbOuO1oVAX9xDXhINzvpZjQH6rXMCVM0mZ8+hheFA/OSKJkjkkCS ALHg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZBDsvHYXAbom6N7Tid1B1nyB3usIo+ophB/7PzKPjI0=; b=nPKSJm5N/ynGyOCtQc0QmLpX1q178AUSSOlarAwaShvzbktgfuhV+Ai9UP+nw9RGyf XTcXA12mNcZE9/cY1WfY7sv9e8gBOBkA2LxRVcBLfQMEmMimUpdw36VKxHxnqhM5N5/2 0JmQEeTEQEDxPa1ZjUpJF2Wo98NAQwqxwrYxyay2CJbTX3JyiBRxjvPh82hrPgnkJcs/ KBGcT64zSDxbOlcxeb78KPTtUpK6JBt3sWvN75yTDBgeWo1heSab86vr6iuPhkt2/xei JqFHeeCufKenXrLVdtjm8F8sXfLqz7N6auzVNmzVAS6jEluJq8gkvrbnXMLCxc0hK4lz 9AHA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ZJr3BqZoILUJ2jnY/UfIOyphCecue5FI9J+NnKgmDn/2F2di0 cJtqefixGH6xPw5WVCrppSLv0norwTElMuIcIcg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyzGOUcowb1W6N/eTDXZhvDmV669kMtLDXdhGY8CENOStpKCkxeL6+YkEjdcQd5rXitv5OQFFW0rf9sEby0Qo8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:b0c:: with SMTP id h12mr10176914ejl.115.1601194979746; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 01:22:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:22:48 +0200 Message-ID: To: Benjamin Eberlei Cc: PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fbe57005b04741df" Subject: List of attributes From: nicolas.grekas@gmail.com (Nicolas Grekas) --000000000000fbe57005b04741df Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Benjamin, hi everyone I'm wondering if the syntax that allows for several attributes is really future-proof when considering nested attributes: *1.* #[foo] #[bar] VS *2.* #[foo, bar] Add nested attributes to the mix, here are two possible ways: *A.* #[foo( #[bar] )] or *B.* #[foo( bar )] The A. syntax is consistent with the 1. list. I feel like syntax B is not desired and could be confusing from a grammar pov. BUT in syntax 2., we allow an attribute to be unprefixed (bar), so that syntax B is consistent with 2. Shouldn't we remove syntax 2. in 8.0 and consider it again when nested attributes are introduced? I voted yes for syntax 2. when the attributes were using << >>. I would vote NO now with the new syntax. Nicolas --000000000000fbe57005b04741df--