On Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 2:53 PM Björn Larsson <bjorn.x.lars...@telia.com> wrote:
> Den 2020-08-14 kl. 21:23, skrev Derick Rethans: > > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Sara Golemon wrote: > > > >> Derick was trying to be good and meet my beta3 deadline. > > And I even got that date wrong by a week. Oops. > > > >> Fortunately, I gave him that deadline (while thinking RC1) knowing > >> some kind of bullshit like this would come up and LO AND BEHOLD here > >> we are. So the good news is that we actually have a spare two weeks. > >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 7:22 AM Theodore Brown <theodor...@outlook.com> > >> wrote: > >>> 2. Include a ranked voting option for @: and mention its pros and > >>> cons (it is equally concise as @@ with no BC break, but is somewhat > >>> harder to type). Patch link: > >>> https://github.com/theodorejb/php-src/pull/1 > >> Glancing at beberlei's reply, I do agree that @: is coming slightly > >> out of left field. However, we're using a STV system, so might as > >> well go wild with the options (within reason). HOWEVER, any option > >> included is going to need the same care applied as you outline in #3 > >> and #4 below. > > I would like to point out that as the main premise of the RFC was that > > the chosen syntax had no ending delimiter, I would say that any new > > suggested syntax should have one before I would be willing to consider > > adding it. > > I think that lack of ending delimiter is not a good enough reason to > exclude the @: syntax from the RFC and voting. Would be good to > have the community view on this in order to put this to rest! > No, the community view does not matter here. Including `@:` would go against the core values that this RFC is proposing: an attribute syntax that has an ending delimiter. > We have the @@ syntax in the voting and of course that's natural. > We have it in the voting poll since it's our current syntax; there are no other reasons. Still adding the @: option would in my eyes give a more complete > view of feasible syntax choices. The far fetched ones should not > be included of course. > Which would go against the entire premise of this RFC. If someone wants `@:`, he/she should create separate RFC. > r//Björn L > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
