Juliette

> thanks for the note , please let me know which aspects would you like me to revise That doesn't show you've thought this over any more than before... Please...

FYI: Build failure is unrelated to this PR, but has to do with an outage at Coveralls. See https://github.com/lemurheavy/coveralls-public/issues/1791 and https://status.coveralls.io/

@fredden Thanks for thinking about this. Unfortunately that is not how it works. We cannot _interpret_ PSR's, we have to follow them _to the letter_. And there is nowhere in...

@fredden The way PSRs have been implemented in sniffs has always been strictly to the letter (including addendums) in this repo. This is not new. I'm just following Greg's lead...

@scop I have a feeling that your feature request is mostly related to your last point: > Alternatively, make it possible to set these values via `phpcs.xml` (see the comment...

In my opinion, this sniff should be rewritten and based on the WPCS `AbstractFunctionRestrictionsSniff` (and eventually the PHPCSUtils version of that). However, I also believe this sniff does not belong...

Why would this sniff get the `phpcs-only="true"` flag, while there are 40+ sniffs in VIPCS itself, which don't, while none of those contain fixers either ?

PHPCS does exactly what is expected: follow PSR12. PSR12 has no rules about array or list formatting, so PHPCS doesn't enforce any. And even PER in the current `master` has...

Happy to see this addressed/made explicit in PER 3.1.

Live stream has started.... Unfortunately, I've had to lock the room again within the first half hour as apparently a coding live stream is not safe from abusive trolls.... Knock...