Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55759
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACwt+JdO8WdCmeQJZxAVkQGd8qot4wtCX0ZNGDgTx4bwWQUB2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH-PCH5-Qv+BHX1dhUKeQQmFMCC2EcKUD2Q0GWQByFSU6uzusA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwt+JdO8WdCmeQJZxAVkQGd8qot4wtCX0ZNGDgTx4bwWQUB2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 07:32:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH6YR7FAa+nXPTD7VQJGqUkKRzx7VY9C6zqwr8M0Rsd25Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] php54 vote
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

thanks for the heads up, I didn't remembered that thread :(
btw. didn't we had some parser improvement patch laying around for a while =
now?

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net> wr=
ote:
> 2011/10/8 Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>:
>> Hi
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54/vote
>> I've just noticed that the php namespace and the primitive types
>> (string, bool, int) are still not reserved.
>> the primitive types didn't had the 66% of the votes, but the php
>> namespace did, so at least that should have been reserved in 5.4
>> already.
>> what is the status about that?
>
> As far as I remember the thread about that, we concluded that while it
> may be ok to make them reserved words in the global namespace, it is
> absolutely not reasonable to make them reserved in a way it would
> prevent creating namespaced classes like: \Company\Types\Int,
> \Company\Types\String.
> Namespaces being created, among other reasons, to avoid name
> collisions, it would be unacceptable to have that BC break for people
> having take care of namespacing that kind of classes.
> And since the parser is too dumb for now, we just can't make it (cfr
> your own mail in that thread).
>
> The votes made on that topic where mostly done by people who obviously
> haven't take care of the technical limitations nor having followed the
> BC problems it generates.
> That topic shouldn't have been voted at all.
>
> Ref: http://marc.info/?t=3D131031633300001
>
> Cheers,
> Patrick
>



--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu