Re: Re: [RFC] Attributes v2

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:11 PM Theodore Brown <theodorejb@outlook.com> wrote: > > the RFC says that the alternate T_ATTRIBUTE @: token has the > downside "that it does not permit whitespace in attribute names to > allow detecting the ending of the declaration." Can you provide an > example of an attribute name containing whitespace that would be allowed > with the shift left/right tokens but not with the attribute token? From what I saw in the related PRs (esp. https://github.com/beberlei/php-src/pull/2#issuecomment-609466083), the main reason is that if @: were defined as a standalone token, then the following sequence (with whitespace everywhere possible, like in https://3v4l.org/NRYbp): function ( @: A \ B $x ) would be ambiguous between two possible interpretations: function ( @:A \B $x ) // A attribute, \B type declaration function ( @:A\B $x ) // A\B attribute, untyped equivalent to respectively: function ( <<A>> \B $x ) function ( <<A\B>> $x ) which permit whitespace (unambiguous because delimited): function ( << A >> \ B $x ) function ( << A \ B >> $x ) (although I've never seen code with spaces around namespace separators). -- Guilliam Xavier