Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69787 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 87430 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2013 00:20:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Oct 2013 00:20:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cpriest@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cpriest@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 66.111.4.27 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cpriest@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 66.111.4.27 out3-smtp.messagingengine.com Received: from [66.111.4.27] ([66.111.4.27:34938] helo=out3-smtp.messagingengine.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C7/10-10840-93617625 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:20:10 -0400 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8070B20E94; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:20:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=+zSF t3WkFaYgYURYUb+sHeHGPq0=; b=mgPvIQe/WZPXZHu118wo3oz6SOXbjJpPaeta pdAig3lxFu0UmQ0i94UFY4GiwDUyYv2bS9hcDedz0DrVeXXHekHx1l9BuDdmtGpL EcXLaDvYx4Tenf5lqW/1LBIFhRizO7+UkY2p0Mo7mMPDPWHH8AEBYp50Y+UnMNWi iz3+WOU= X-Sasl-enc: JnorMOvveblA5RLyg2/6SeJSNfNAxSd3ZRpVhMPKq7kx 1382487607 Received: from mail.zerocue.com (unknown [67.200.53.250]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 47BFC680081; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [172.17.0.84] (65-111-100-3.static.grandenetworks.net [65.111.100.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.zerocue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9BDD7120253; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 19:20:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5267162E.6010705@php.net> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 19:19:58 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Developers Mailing List PHP CC: Bob Weinand References: <5266E17F.40700@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: <5266E17F.40700@sugarcrm.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070104090807080603070105" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Vote] Keywords as identifiers From: cpriest@php.net (Clint Priest) --------------070104090807080603070105 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just wanted to +1 for the idea but agree with Stas, Derrick and Zeev on the implementation, a simpler way needs to be found to solve the problem. On 10/22/2013 3:35 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> 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. > Exactly the same here. I love the idea, but looking at the code I > realize even with my experience about what's going on in the engine I > have hard time understanding what's going on there, and we're not > talking about some obscure nook of the engine - parser is right in the > middle of everything. So I personally adding so much complexity is not > worth the cost. If we can find a solution to do the same (or roughly the > same, sacrificing some less important features) without adding so much > complexity it'd be much better I think. > Maybe if you made a good narrative explanation what's going on in that > code and it turned out it's not as bad as it looks and we just didn't > realize it, it would be more acceptable. --------------070104090807080603070105--