Andrea Faulds wrote (on 04/08/2014):
It doesn’t collide, there is no syntactical ambiguity at an engine level, at
least.
You do mention one collision in the RFC though:
> It does not permit dynamic references such as |&$classname::foo|, due
to conflicts with existing syntax and for symmetry (while
|&$classname::foo| would be doable, |&FooBar::$foo| is not, so we do
neither).
I'm not entirely sure of the reasoning in the parentheses, actually. Do
you just mean that only the &FooBar::$foo case conflicts with existing
logic?
It would be a shame having just made great progress in making the syntax
more regular to have to include arbitrary exceptions to a feature just
for lack of unambiguous syntax.
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
