Hi Nikita What happens to the attributes syntax if this RFC doesn't pass?
Furthermore, I think voting against this RFC to prevent the @@ syntax from happening is an abuse of the system. If there are problems with the attribute syntax, than the vote results on that one should be called void and a revote should happen, but it shouldn't affect the vote of this RFC, which has a larger impact than just the attributes syntax. Kind regards Brent > On 14 Jul 2020, at 11:09, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 4:33 PM Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com > <mailto:nikita....@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:52 AM Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi internals, >>> >>> Inspired by the recent discussion on reserved keyword reservation, I'd >>> like to propose the following RFC: >>> >>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaced_names_as_token >>> >>> This RFC makes two related changes: Treat namespaced names as a single >>> token, which enables use of reserved keywords inside them. And remove >>> reserved keyword restrictions from various declarations. >>> >>> The RFC comes with a small backwards compatibility break related to names >>> that include whitespace, but will hopefully reduce the backwards >>> compatibility impact of future reserved keyword additions. >>> >> >> I have reduced the scope of this RFC to handle just the issue of >> namespaced names, without touching any other reserved keyword restrictions. >> As the discussion shows, those are trickier, with more cases of perceived >> ambiguity that may need to be mitigated. >> >> As this proposal is now a prerequisite for >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax, I have heard from a >> disturbing number of people that they might vote against this proposal, not >> because they disagree with it, but because that would prevent the adoption >> of the @@ attribute syntax. I'm not sure what to do about that... >> > > Heads up: I plan to open voting on this proposal tomorrow, unless there is > further feedback. > > Nikita
