I would like to suggests the syntax "using attribute(Attribute, ...)". It is more clear and should not create BC.
Em qui, 30 de jul de 2020 10:28, Joe Ferguson <j...@joeferguson.me> escreveu: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:50 AM Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de> > wrote: > > > I think it has become clear that we need to revisit this syntax question > > again, including the elephpant in the room of delaying this feature to > 8.1. > > > > The reason is not only Joe's desire to revote on #[], <snipped> > > > > > No, I *do not* want to revote. This RFC simply takes a formal approach to > approve the syntax that came in 2nd based on concerns raised with the @@ > syntax. > > Now that it seems the technical concerns around @@ have been resolved by > another pending, passing, RFC, I'm still here wanting us to talk about the > impact of @@ on static analysis tools. Apparently, internals doesn't care > about these projects. I care and I'm trying to help. I'm not trying to > revote until I get the vote I want. I'm just a dude that had some free time > while on vacation when he saw a chance to contribute. > > I see two possible outcomes: > > Release Managers collectively should decide what we do to move forward. > Either accept @@, we'll decline this RFC and we can move on to the next > nearest bikeshed. > > OR > > If Release Managers don't want to, or can't collectively make a decision > then this RFC should go to a vote and we'll see what 2/3s of the group > want. > > I'm fine with either outcome. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change > > -- > - Joe Ferguson > JoeFerguson.me > osmihelp.org >
