Hi Theodore,
Firstly, sorry if my previous e-mail came across overly negative, I
wasn't in the best mood when I wrote it (gestures vaguely at the state
of the world).
I think this is possibly the best line I've read all week:
Well, I guess the line between objective and subjective may sometimes
be a bit subjective. :)
Ultimately, it all comes down to judgement calls - is the
double-angle-bracket syntax "too verbose", "too ugly" when nested, etc;
and does the double-at syntax make it "better enough".
So I'll try not to get into endless back-and-forth on every point, and
just pick up on a couple of things.
On 04/06/2020 23:20, Theodore Brown wrote:
Also, grouped attributes would probably have to be special-cased to
be disallowed in nested attributes, since they don't make sense there.
I'm not entirely clear how they work in current implementations like
Doctrine's, but I think nested attributes would have to have completely
different rules anyway, because you don't access them directly through
reflection in the same way.
If <<Foo( <<Bar>> )>> means something like "new Foo( new Bar )", then I
can imagine it being useful for <<Foo( <<Bar, Baz>> )>> to mean "new
Foo( [new Bar, new Baz] )". That would actually be more convenient than
the double-at version, where you'd have to write @@Foo( [ @@Bar, @@Baz ]
) or use a constructor with a ...$variadic parameter.
I don't understand how it's disingenuous. The RFC refers to the shift
tokens as such because that's what they are (`T_SL` and `T_SR`). The
proposed `@@` syntax uses a new `T_ATTRIBUTE` token.
The "::" token in the parser is called T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM, and
personally I find T_SL and T_SR just as cryptic and irrelevant. The most
common place I see those token names is when accidentally running code
with conflict markers like "<<<<<<<<", or when messing up heredoc
syntax; even if they weren't so abbreviated, my reaction would be "shift
what now?" I've used bit-shifts maybe twice in the last ten years, so
it's just not an immediate association to me.
"Disingenuous" was probably too strong a word, but I do think it relates
to a fundamental difference in viewpoint: to some people, << and >> are
first and foremost the shift-left and shift-right operators, and so the
immediate association on seeing them is so obvious it's not worth
mentioning; to others, they just look like a new kind of brackets.
That association might actually be a good reason to avoid that syntax,
but if so it should be spelled out, rather than taken as a given.
Regards,
--
Rowan Tommins (né Collins)
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
