Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:32520
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.162 as permitted sender)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:46:16 -0700
Message-ID: <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CEB9528E@us-ex1.zend.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV]  T_IMPORT vs. T_USE
Thread-Index: AcgEHbQ3Ce1wPJsvS7msc31XUHxwfAAPRgHg
References: <fdohj3$bul$1@sea.gmane.org> <1191237850.2903.19.camel@johannes.nop>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter?= <johannes@php.net>,
	"Sebastian Bergmann" <sb@sebastian-bergmann.de>
Cc: <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV]  T_IMPORT vs. T_USE
From: andi@zend.com ("Andi Gutmans")

Hi Johannes,
Our preference would be to stick to "import" because I think the =
perception many will have of "use" is that it also includes files (just =
based on some other languages). That said I agree that compatibility =
would be an issue here. In fact it's even somewhat of an issue with =
"namespace" which is probably also used quite a bit esp. in relation to =
XML.

What I'd like to do is see if it's feasible to support reserved words as =
identifiers. It should be possible but we need to see if it makes sense, =
how it affects consistency, and if we do it what identifiers we'd do it =
for (or all?).

We probably won't get to this until after our conference next week so my =
suggestion is to keep it as-is for now and then revisit it. We're still =
far enough off from the release so that we don't need to finalize today.

Thx.
Andi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johannes Schl=FCter [mailto:johannes@php.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 4:24 AM
> To: Sebastian Bergmann
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] T_IMPORT vs. T_USE
>=20
> Hi Sebastiann et al.,
>=20
> On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 18:06 +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> > When we removed the namespace implementation that was scheduled for
> >  PHP 5.0 before PHP 5.0's release we kept the T_NAMESPACE and T_USE
> >  tokens for forward-compatibility.
>=20
> T_NAMESPACE is new, only T_USE wasn't removed back then. afaik. ;-)
>=20
> >  The new namespace implementation in HEAD and PHP_5_3 uses the the
> new
> >  T_IMPORT token instead of T_USE thus breaking code as "import" is
> now
> >  a reserved word.
> >
> >  We should, IMHO, drop T_IMPORT and change the namespace
> implementation
> >  to use T_USE.
> >
> >  Thoughts?
>=20
> Well, import seems to be a word used quite often in PHP for method
> names, after I found some code breaking I did a short test using
> Google's Codesearch[1] to look for method calls using "->import(" and
> got "about 300" results including major apps like horde, tikiwiki,
> typo3
> and wordpress.
>=20
> Therefor I think it's worth to at least think about using the already
> reserved, but not used, keyword "use". From taking a look at the
> language (the English one in this case ;-)) a sentence like "use
> Namespace::SomeClass as SomeClass" makes perfect sense to me - but I
> don't know much about the concept of Perl's (and other language's)
> meaning of "use", BUT, we're neither Java nor Perl but PHP so we =
should
> use the keyword fitting best to PHP...
>=20
> If we can agree on the change I can write a patch changing the token
> and
> renaming the internal stuff accordingly.
>=20
> johannes
>=20
> [1] http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=3Dlang%3Aphp+%22-%3Eimport%28%
> 22&hl=3Den&btnG=3DSearch+Code
>=20
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php