On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:37 PM Josh Bruce <j...@joshbruce.dev> wrote:
> New to the discussion and being this deep; so, apologies for any bumps.
> Mainly questions.
>
> Does this only affect the string after the “namespace” keyword (make
> implicit explicit)?
>
This affects any place accepting namespaced names. The only part that is
specific to the "namespace" keyword is that you can write "namespace
reserved_keyword;", which would not automatically be the case based on the
rest of the proposal.
So, things like “use” with a stack of classes within a base namespace would
> still be possible?
You mean the group use syntax "use Foo\Bar\{A, B};"? That's still possible.
In this case we'd interpret Foo\Bar" as a namespaced name and "\" as an
isolated namespace separator. This is the only case where "\" is still used
as an independent symbol.
> On reserved words, if I had class “String” would that still throw a
> reserved word violation?
>
Yes, nothing about handling of reserved class names is changing under the
current proposal.
Nikita
> Cheers,
> Josh
>
> > On Jul 14, 2020, at 5:52 AM, Brent Roose <bre...@stitcher.io> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
