Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111939
Return-Path: <derick@php.net>
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 9620 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2020 23:31:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5)
  by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2020 23:31:00 -0000
Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B671804B1
	for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 15:42:15 -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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,
	SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Virus: No
X-Envelope-From: <derick@php.net>
Received: from xdebug.org (xdebug.org [82.113.146.227])
	by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 15:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.42.60] (host86-143-96-122.range86-143.btcentralplus.com [86.143.96.122])
	by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EA1B10C080;
	Sun, 27 Sep 2020 23:42:13 +0100 (BST)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 23:42:11 +0100
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAOWwgpkDAq4d229Z3D3=xBWyX-z8N+qC-BG4j0uoZy4Xc6JLKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOWwgpkDAq4d229Z3D3=xBWyX-z8N+qC-BG4j0uoZy4Xc6JLKQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: internals@lists.php.net,Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas@gmail.com>,Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>
CC: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <10CBABED-831F-4D0E-BE3B-1EB4053C0AAB@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] List of attributes
From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)

On 27 September 2020 09:22:48 BST, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas=2Egrekas@gmail=
=2Ecom> wrote:
>Hi Benjamin, hi everyone
>
>I'm wondering if the syntax that allows for several attributes is
>really
>future-proof when considering nested attributes:
>
>
>*1=2E*
>#[foo]
>#[bar]
>
>VS
>
>
>*2=2E*
>#[foo, bar]

<snip>

>Shouldn't we remove syntax 2=2E in 8=2E0 and consider it again when neste=
d
>attributes are introduced?

No=2E You're about 2 months too late for that=2E

I'm also not in favour of nested attributes=2E=20

cheers,
Derick=20