Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53891
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: patrick.allaert@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH4ehYE3zyfFtUgZPEQYv=1xOzHeVDXk9FQLf_9Sdx-RWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACwt+Jc=yGjr_YQ-i_gDs5DyUhGajTHxa5hJ1g4qfEWDyhvBaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E1A012F.3030703@sugarcrm.com>
	<25.72.09103.BF11B1E4@pb1.pair.com>
	<CAH-PCH4ehYE3zyfFtUgZPEQYv=1xOzHeVDXk9FQLf_9Sdx-RWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:21:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CACwt+JfKZei8p7G1H0MrbpS6bg6BFf5k-s5JM-sd1O4HuZXKSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
Cc: "Matthew Weier O'Phinney" <weierophinney@php.net>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Make primitive type names reserved words (Was: Re:
 [PHP-DEV] [RFC] 5.4 features for vote (long))
From: patrickallaert@php.net (Patrick ALLAERT)

2011/7/11 Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney

[snip]

>> I think that's a bad idea. The point of namespaces is to allow us to
>> override classes (and functions, and constants) within that namespace.
>> If I can't do this:
>>
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0namespace Foo
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0{
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0class String
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0{
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0}
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0}
>>
>> then I'd consider the implementation too restrictive.

This is exactly my concern.

> the parser is a little bit dumb, and the namespaces isn't really first
> class citizens in php AFAIK, so it's not a deliberate restriction imo,
> just a technical, which could be solved.

The parser being dumb wouldn't be a reason to make code which works
fine on 5.3, break on 5.4 and then again working on 5.5 because of
words being keyworded for the sake of "a future implementation" which
doesn't explain whether it would break that kind of namespaced
classes.

Regards,
Patrick