Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110647 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 77285 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2020 08:53:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 18 Jun 2020 08:53:26 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB6021804A8 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:39:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lf1-f48.google.com (mail-lf1-f48.google.com [209.85.167.48]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f48.google.com with SMTP id u25so2902079lfm.1 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:39:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PRzQvap1VGJnUQEXEp5luSI8cp2TmGGB9jyndzyU24U=; b=BFCNLYjObrU+8VEQB+G2pLmgTnd5tfB33Aodydsu5SfoMGuioQmaUfWm/PechLrIZv QajvkhVxHN5J6C1VlB1votE08BXr+MnT3ouBYSwPMLxPijmOwzX3FF3RDulEuxZM/He+ L046HDOB2fcf6DOvhmBY2ZM7EYyusrodNfmxJHD5ABaROU2zO4lkkqrX5ROZK+/p8BAl 7TSPAHZSeoZNjKkdzRmEYw74xY8Vy6RAWtrrSbVPa+adkZz+NLZZZUVgZpY2qlytHy/e zgOgzMNcFwv22uVvFkiYMNiA0yeNvZiOargjlcXJCH4rMHR1cNEhJWs6nJaFVg5vEUyi yUsA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PRzQvap1VGJnUQEXEp5luSI8cp2TmGGB9jyndzyU24U=; b=hwugrpNqEvCNfhtwn/e5owGxz27XmKF1xT8y5AVjHiBlwUx/TAHhGfgE34+pnN03mD K//+fRqtUgD0MwWURaz2NIv/QId8fzxIEw4+hUYOrM9z0D35uVfx/LeZz5mI+M+eBs32 0xmuxprKzTdqEUIQzXWXXKeKYtBTCbdQeVWc62p91BTaVrXILi609VTe47cfyzAa7nEu c8JmaREm3maVAlpnQbSIB7HlHGPzR+lmV5dAoDIoppWYYaxBUjzt9iuFeXgI5cSENnB8 kEJf8MiTMtzDaS74ee8J/YLxEgn7xqi6UwVkpzjNiEiOVBZQkkNBGJqODyrFwBFqZgSO n0jw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531nRw1VeBW6Am3hOe2IQd2NfsHxh0RmhXsrmBuVXUHddHU9kHC1 4/YVeqVmC9EgZZxqLL6Za1MFQehbO0IJRcZ568kCJdL4pwQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwXlmchGQ5T3XWJtAFjVARsiV5RaIo0fBINcZecF+lEV+0ZJkaWSe62ZkbrKz8EtQy9JRYskAATOgIZr64LHoE= X-Received: by 2002:a19:a43:: with SMTP id 64mr1609150lfk.190.1592465953829; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:39:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 09:38:57 +0200 Message-ID: To: Jakob Givoni Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007eb8ac05a856df1f" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Treat namespaced names as single token, relax reserved keyword restrictions From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --0000000000007eb8ac05a856df1f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:06 AM Jakob Givoni wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:52 AM Nikita Popov > 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. > > > > Regards, > > Nikita > > Love it, thanks Nikita! > > In a mail that probably went to everyone's spam folder, I asked for > opinions on allowing use of .\Foo as an alternative to Foo in the > current namespace, thus reducing friction with reserved keywords even > more. Any thoughts on that now? > How would .\Foo be different from the currently existing namespace\Foo? (Note that "namespace" here is to be taken literally, not as "put the current namespace here"). Nikita --0000000000007eb8ac05a856df1f--