Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change

> On Jul 28, 2020, at 14:10, Paul M. Jones <pmjones@pmjones.io> wrote: > >> On Jul 28, 2020, at 14:07, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 28, 2020, at 13:55, Paul M. Jones <pmjones@pmjones.io> wrote: >>> >>> Now, it may be that #[] or <<>> or something else actually is >>> "better" in some sense that cannot be articulated. But if there are no existing technical >>> hurdles to be overcome with the already-voted-on-and-accepted solution of @@, what technically >>> compelling reason can there be to revote? >> >> >> IMO, there is no compelling reason to revote other than the fact that we have no process >> for what to do in this situation. > > What "situation" is this, exactly? AFICT we have a working implementation using @@, > with no technical hurdles to surmount. Or have I missed something that now prevents @@ from working > per its RFC? The new RFC outlines reasons why @@ is a sub-optimal choice. TL;DR: * current parser conflict (which can be worked around) * possibility for further (as of yet unknown) parsing issues * a closing ] makes it easier to extend Attributes with more syntax, and at the same time not be at the risk of running into parser conflicts * userland analysis tools have difficulties parsing @@ Cheers, Ben

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] Message signed with OpenPGP signature.asc