Re: [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change

Hi Benjamin, niedz., 16 sie 2020, 11:29 użytkownik Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de> napisał: > Following the valid criticisms of us starting the vote too early, we have > closed the vote for this RFC for now. > > We look to restart the vote middle next week, so that we can close this > before the Beta 3 release on September 3rd. > > We have updated the RFC at > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change with > what we > think > covers all the discussion and arguments made in this and the previous > mailing list threads. > > Sorry to everyone for causing this hazzle. > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:41 AM Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I've just opened the vote to make sure we don't make a terrible mistake > > with using the @@ syntax for attributes: > > > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change#voting > > > > The first vote is a vote to say that you have an opinion about attribute > > syntax. Make sure to read up on the discussion on the mailinglist if you > > haven't done so yet. > > > > The second vote is an STV vote. > > > > In STV you SHOULD rank *all* choices, but don't pick the same one more > > than once, as that will invalidate your vote. > > > > Please have a objective look at the table > > (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change#proposal) and > > don't just go by asthetics. > Thank you for working on this. Recent update doesn't change my vote but made me even more confident about arguments behind #[] syntax. The table which compares different syntaxes have an amount of minimum chars needed for writing attribute but what I've noticed is that it differs when considering more than 2 attributes in groupped syntax. What I mean is that @@ requires always 2*N amount of chars which for 3 attributes is 6 while for syntaxes like #[] it is only 3 for N=1 and only 3+N-1 for N>1 which for 3 attributes is only 5 and adds always only 1 additional required chars for next additional attribute due to fact that grouped syntax requires only one comma "," between attributes. Cheers, Michał Marcin Brzuchalski >