Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69764 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 18533 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2013 12:28:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Oct 2013 12:28:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:57800] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 69/93-10840-55F66625 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:28:05 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA7DEE202F; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:28:02 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:28:02 +0100 (BST) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Bob Weinand cc: Zeev Suraski , Developers List PHP Mailing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <228247caf0dc0352a6c3f313193ea46a@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Vote] Keywords as identifiers From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, Bob Weinand wrote: > Am 22.10.2013 um 12:54 schrieb "Zeev Suraski" : > > > From: Derick Rethans [mailto:derick@php.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 12:12 PM > > > >> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Bob Weinand wrote: > >>> > >>> I have started the vote for extended keyword support RFC: > >>> > >>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/keywords_as_identifiers > >> > >> Just to explain why I voted "no". I think the idea is good, but > >> what I see from the patch is that it adds a *lot* of hand written > >> state machines which are going to be a pain to maintain. I do not > >> think this extra maintenance is worth the features - we've done > >> pretty well without it. > > > > Thumbs up for the idea as well, but I don't think we can live with > > the implementation. BTW, that's a bit of a grey area but I think > > that even if an idea is accepted, if there's no reasonably clean > > implementation available for it, I don't think it can go in. > > As said, if anyone has a good idea how to improve the implementation, > I'd be happy to implement it. That's not an excuse for adding code that people disagree with. > Btw. Is my implementation so bad? I think it looks far worse than it > is in reality...) You add 350 lines of almost-hand-crafted parsing to the lexer, which I consider "modereately bad". My point is that I don't think it's worth this extra complication for a "not really important" feature. cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine