On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 10:39 AM Jakob Givoni <ja...@givoni.dk> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 1:00 AM Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The RFC says that
> >> > The main concern is that @@ has no ending symbol and it's
> inconsistent with the language
> >> > that it would be the only declaration or statement in the whole
> language that has no ending termination symbol.
> >> However, it's clear that attributes are neither a declaration nor a
> >> statement, but metadata about the thing that follows them (unless it's
> >> more attributes or comments).
> >> The ultimate proof of this is that a semicolon after an attribute is
> illegal.
> >
> > I would like to chime in here since this argument is made over and over
> again, even though it overlooks an important point. when we say that
> attributes are just metadata, then let's compare them to docblocks with
> *are* always enclosed in /** and */ instead of visibility keywords.
> >
> > This comparison is fair, because doc comments are often multi line and
> attributes are as well. When doc comments are single line, they are also
> enclosed.
> >
> > Whereas a comparison with visibility modifiers that are *just* tokens
> that *always* are followed by a T_WHITESPACE is apples vs oranges, because
> @@ attributes can be followed by a large set of different things:
> >
> > @@Foo @@Bar // ends due to T_WHITESPACE with " "
> > @@Foo // ends due to T_WHITESPACE with "\n"
> > @@Foo() // ends due to )
> > @@Foo () // ends with ), the T_WHITESPACE between class and arguments
> is valid
> > @@Foo@@Bar // ends due to new T_ATTRIBUTE
> > @@Foo()@@Bar // ends due to )
> > @@Foo
> > ("bar") // ends here in the second line at )
> > function a_function() {
> > }
> >
>
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument.
> It's true that annotations used to be enclosed in a docblock, but that
> is not an argument for saying that attributes NEEDS to be enclosed in
> a block too.
> It's also true that attributes can be followed by many different
> things, but still it doesn't follow that block enclosing is NECESSARY.
> What I'm saying is that there is still no good argument for why
> attribute block syntax is better than non-block syntax.
> The only argument that was presented in the original RFC was not
> convincing, and I pointed out why.
>
Nobody says it's ultimately **necessarry** as @@ can work.
The argument does not have to be convincing to everyone as we are not
making decisions by 100% majority.
We are bringing forward a set of arguments why we think end delimiters and
enclosing syntax is better and keeps more options open for the future.
> I'm also not saying that non-block syntax is better.
> Hence, it seems it's just a matter of taste, so far - unless we get to
> see some convincing arguments in the rewritten RFC.
>
> Thanks,
> Jakob
>
