Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69842
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: julienpauli@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <82fa1346f70700781429dc174266e53a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BLU0-SMTP246429F66DC7B144E131FE7E2010@phx.gbl>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1310221010490.5542@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <228247caf0dc0352a6c3f313193ea46a@mail.gmail.com> <DUB403-EAS85F76DB0B967920DFA7B98E2020@phx.gbl>
 <82fa1346f70700781429dc174266e53a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:37:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMUwpuTE5s39cPo-FdsLvKXQd6TMHHmHnsjorJU+GQb19FPtcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>, 
	Developers List PHP Mailing <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec548674471b79604e97cbdc5
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Vote] Keywords as identifiers
From: jpauli@php.net (Julien Pauli)

--bcaec548674471b79604e97cbdc5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Zeev
> >
> > As said, if anyone has a good idea how to improve the implementation,
> I'd
> > be happy to implement it.
> >
> > (I really can't imagine a better way...)
>
> I think the point that Derick is trying to make, and that I agree with -
> is that if there's no better way to implement it we shouldn't be
> implementing it at all.  In other words, coming up with a clean
> implementation is a requirement before we can go ahead and introduce this
> feature into the language.  I did not mean to imply you did a poor job
> implementing it, I don't presently have an idea of how to make it better.
>

I'm all +1 with that.

Don't forget that we have been leaving with those reserved keyword for ~15y
now, and just right.
I don't think we should hurry on such a feature adding so much complicated
stuff, especially to the lexer.

Julien.Pauli

--bcaec548674471b79604e97cbdc5--