Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69753 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 85069 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2013 10:07:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Oct 2013 10:07:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bobwei9@hotmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bobwei9@hotmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.76 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bobwei9@hotmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 65.55.111.76 blu0-omc2-s1.blu0.hotmail.com Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 Received: from [65.55.111.76] ([65.55.111.76:46009] helo=blu0-omc2-s1.blu0.hotmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 65/5D-10840-E7E46625 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:07:59 -0400 Received: from BLU0-SMTP407 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s1.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:07:55 -0700 X-TMN: [kGa6ReI8li32hyvU4nKADqEFIsiiLhYI] X-Originating-Email: [bobwei9@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from [10.5.4.43] ([158.64.22.1]) by BLU0-SMTP407.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:07:53 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) In-Reply-To: <52664B00.3030409@php.net> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:08:42 +0200 CC: List PHP Mailing Developers Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <52664B00.3030409@php.net> To: Sebastian Bergmann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2013 10:07:53.0553 (UTC) FILETIME=[928D0410:01CECF0E] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Vote] Keywords as identifiers From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand) Am 22.10.2013 um 11:53 schrieb Sebastian Bergmann : > On 10/22/2013 11:30 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: >> I did not vote yet, however I agree with Derick. A cleaner solution >> would be better. We have lived with this restriction for some time >> already and we may as well delay this RFC until we have a viable >> technical solution. If anyone feels motivated enough to implement the >> parser/lexer using other tools :) > > The implementation has to be clean and the experience to users has > to be consistent. Last time I looked at the RFC the implementation > only allowed some keywords to be used in some contexts where keywords > could not be used previously. Not allowing all keywords in all contexts > only leads to confusion. I had announced previously on the list and it's noted in the RFC too, that these inconsistencies had been removed. That's actually not the problem; Pierre and Derick are talking about the implementation in C. Bob Weinand