Re: [RFC] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change RFC 0.2

> > > This is some new complexity, even if only a small amount right now. > My question remains about how much more added complexity it will > require later if we implement extensions like nested attributes. > What? Are you actually saying that 30 lines of code add "complexity"? I think you should look more at the PHP source code before going to these nonsensical conclusions. PHP is a fully fledged language, not a "let's write the shortest code possible" competition. As for the nested attributes, you can implement those with simple recursion. You are trying to create problems here that don't exist. > Yes, PHP has historically been rather verbose in some ways. > Thankfully this has been gradually changing, with the short array > syntax added in 5.4, and more recently short arrow functions, > constructor property promotion, and the match expression having an > explicit goal to reduce verbosity. > No offense intended but saying that 1 extra character somehow adds verbosity is quite honestly, one of the stupidest things I have heard. While we at it, let's also rename other keywords: function to f, while to w and static to s. You know, to save those few extra characters. > What is the goal of the grouped attribute construct? I still haven't > received an answer about what makes it better than @@. > You can't compare attribute syntax against attribute feature. You better tell me why @@ is better than @[] using arguments and not with "boo, I have to type 1 extra character with @[]". As for the grouped attributes. Why do we allow grouped properties and class constants? It's alternative code style that some might prefer. > > Aren't docblock annotations only wrapped in /** */ because they have to > be inside a comment? There is no need for this with the native > attribute syntax. To me, the #[] and > @[] tokens don't at all look > similar to docblock comment boundaries, anyway. > Even more so with @@, which look nothing alike to docblocks. Just because docblock annotations contain the same character as attribute syntax, it doesn't magically mean "it's like docblocks". Because if so, @[] looks far far more like docblocks than @@. > Best regards, > Theodore Best regards, Benas