Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

This is only part of a thread. view whole thread
  111109
July 22, 2020 12:46 kontakt@beberlei.de (Benjamin Eberlei)
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:40 PM Deleu <deleugyn@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Terrible" is the amount of humans having their lives taken by a pandemic.. > This is at most slightly inconvenient for you. The aggressive tone in this > discussion is extremely unnecessary. >
After the RFC was voted on for @@, objectively "terrible" (or bad) reasons for this patch have been found though, that can only be softened by changing token parsing for namespaces. This is not a subjective opinion.
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:00 PM Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that > > the @@ syntax is a good idea? > > > > - There are lots of grumbles, both on here, room 11, as well as in the > > wider community (https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/hjpu79/it_is/) > > - It has the distinct possibility to cause further parsing issues, akin > > to what ended up happening with what Nikita is addressing at > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaced_names_as_token > > - There is no "end symbol" to make finding occurences easier. > > - It is a syntax *no other language* uses. > > - @ is never going to go away, so the possibility of @@ moving to @ is > > also 0. > > > > Please, let's do the sensible and use the Rusty #[...] syntax. > > > > cheers, > > Derick > > > > -- > > PHP 7.4 Release Manager > > Host of PHP Internals News: https://phpinternals.news > > Like Xdebug? Consider supporting me: https://xdebug.org/support > > https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io > > twitter: @derickr and @xdebug > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > -- > Marco Aurélio Deleu >
  111111
July 22, 2020 12:49 brendt@stitcher.io (Brent Roose)
Doesn't it make the most sense to re-vote the syntax? I'd consider the previous vote to be invalid given the parsing issues that weren't listed in the RFC.

A re-vote seems the most fair: if the majority still prefers @@, then so be it. Otherwise the syntax changes once again, before feature-freeze. I suppose the RMs should have a final say in this descision?

Kind regards
Brent

> On 22 Jul 2020, at 14:46, Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:40 PM Deleu <deleugyn@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Terrible" is the amount of humans having their lives taken by a pandemic. >> This is at most slightly inconvenient for you. The aggressive tone in this >> discussion is extremely unnecessary. >> > > After the RFC was voted on for @@, objectively "terrible" (or bad) reasons > for this patch have been found though, that can only be softened by > changing token parsing for namespaces. > > This is not a subjective opinion. > > >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:00 PM Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I know we've voted twice on this already, but are we really sure that >>> the @@ syntax is a good idea? >>> >>> - There are lots of grumbles, both on here, room 11, as well as in the >>> wider community (https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/hjpu79/it_is/) >>> - It has the distinct possibility to cause further parsing issues, akin >>> to what ended up happening with what Nikita is addressing at >>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaced_names_as_token >>> - There is no "end symbol" to make finding occurences easier. >>> - It is a syntax *no other language* uses. >>> - @ is never going to go away, so the possibility of @@ moving to @ is >>> also 0. >>> >>> Please, let's do the sensible and use the Rusty #[...] syntax. >>> >>> cheers, >>> Derick >>> >>> -- >>> PHP 7.4 Release Manager >>> Host of PHP Internals News: https://phpinternals.news >>> Like Xdebug? Consider supporting me: https://xdebug.org/support >>> https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io >>> twitter: @derickr and @xdebug >>> >>> -- >>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Marco Aurélio Deleu >>
  111113
July 22, 2020 12:58 larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020, at 7:49 AM, Brent Roose wrote:
> Doesn't it make the most sense to re-vote the syntax? I'd consider the > previous vote to be invalid given the parsing issues that weren't > listed in the RFC. > > A re-vote seems the most fair: if the majority still prefers @@, then > so be it. Otherwise the syntax changes once again, before > feature-freeze. I suppose the RMs should have a final say in this > descision? > > Kind regards > Brent
One of the advantages of having conducted it as a ranked-choice-vote is that we can easily disqualify the @@ option and then recount with just the other two, counting @@ supporters' second choice. No new vote is needed, unless we think a significant number of people would have changed their minds between << >> and #[ ] since then. (I think that's unlikely, personally.) IIRC, it looked like #[ ] would win that runoff but it's easy enough to recompute and be sure. I agree this is ultimately an RM decision for how to proceed; my recommendation would be to Make A Call(tm) if the parsing issues of @@ are significant enough to disqualify it, and if so, recompute the vote as above and go with the result. @@ may be easier to type than the others, but at the end of the day the parsing problems it introduces seem like the killer blow to me. --Larry Garfield