What about@app.configurator:configure? I would prefer keeping the@ as a service indicator.

As far as I understand correctly, this continues#12008 that missed the "configurator" case?
Could you add a few tests please?

@ro0NL, I would prefer to use@ too. But it will be a BC break.

I see. Maybe it's good to mention this is a generic format, ie i thought it was configurator specific at first, but it's also a notation we can use on factories.

The BC is due the fact service id's allow for colons? Im not sure how intuitive this (new) format will be..., what about@app.configurator->configure =/ Anyway is this really better than
['@app.configurator', 'configure'] which is pretty short already imo. We gain 5 chars or so...

@ro0NL, it is not a new format. It will be a BC break because some people already use short syntax for service factories in their code without using leading@.

@voronkovich I don't understand what you mean.app.configurator:configure does not work for a configurator today, because it is not a callable

I'm 👍 for making the configurator configuration support the same short syntax than the factory one in Yaml. Being consistent is a good idea

@nicolas-grekas, do we really need additional tests for this? We already have the tests for services factories:https://github.com/symfony/symfony/blob/master/src/Symfony/Component/DependencyInjection/Tests/Loader/YamlFileLoaderTest.php#L157

@voronkovich if there is a new supported syntax, we need to have a test ensuring that we don't break this syntax by mistake

@stof, Thanks for the explanation!@nicolas-grekas, I've added the tests and fixed some errors.

👍

Thank you@voronkovich.

I propose to deprecate this in#31543