Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110898 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 27154 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2020 15:42:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 2020 15:42:48 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C5C180532 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:34:00 -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-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lj1-f173.google.com (mail-lj1-f173.google.com [209.85.208.173]) (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, 9 Jul 2020 07:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f173.google.com with SMTP id r19so2624790ljn.12 for ; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 07:33:59 -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; bh=bq1Upg0xX5Cfwaup+719QMpIZwnlwJc+N1ElLmwWRIA=; b=FlckfKIcLvuI5oJ3kKoQudzOg26Rvo009/5kSTSdb9H2sPLLXWQk2kXx/fKe8sgR+s /HPsG14MNzMFYdC9TrfZrpcOViOoYw7iVw657Ry1J3lFuvf8Qe3XUuhsqbrhBU/m50zL 712j8Tv0C95pHT11qZ7wK5eJdaLr+B0MJtFWJN617LpGN86kSpmtz+Y0tDZXDxI5lst/ 3L1lF/+STOwB9dPbE9A4jE40QzcxrVOfnM+FeoNuMkH5VgcJK8BAuobQyLMgYIdZwEs8 ZJ/PP8IBAwhirJNBtVIq7vRtnSj3YrSLA46LUMrmO0g2/hYOkegJrDiBxJy+4W/GTrcB 6Jzg== 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; bh=bq1Upg0xX5Cfwaup+719QMpIZwnlwJc+N1ElLmwWRIA=; b=HCjeIlTN9oWciodNCRROEXGVWutLVtfQNTvnmbAIeDsHmkborQnGWJ1PUFriAuatmy onWt24LjSw2xxWHc6IidffJU8jPN7UNlw6ApCcUwGrur7/5mhOKb7Ff5Kp5/fQ7HDjiJ kskhmwdEcrcSSfXlz1ZkjrN4lCgyjeID3DqVN+Drhcam8aGzfBbMVpZkfRLlZsRxOy5P M2xI6wMei9Gy6kIP+1gNPBInZpiYmqMkRKiUHV+2arZAOVqPgKqiBRYpWTv1rW0Vc5lG Q6fel2a8iAd10vaKCyTnAogy4bwuyk7IapEpa96moXhEA72JB0IBNICA/vxa1PV52YaB rxlw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XSUo8TuzELftOEGdV/huR8p9z0kWsdmVRhSTfIZiZzvNBRl10 zv08XQHn9Zge+rXti9mUrERN8CvguJviOFtbCwD+wMNcbrQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyYscmvouLEVOVyG1abuGKXuoQap9bOvfkai4XATX0t9UftXsyJy9V3prT6JmGWb/sbVEcY0qLEK69lxPab+H0= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8199:: with SMTP id e25mr20950076ljg.307.1594305238310; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 07:33:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 16:33:42 +0200 Message-ID: To: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000064a2fb05aa031db1" Subject: Re: [RFC] Treat namespaced names as single token, relax reserved keyword restrictions From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --00000000000064a2fb05aa031db1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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. > 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... Regards, Nikita --00000000000064a2fb05aa031db1--