Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69845
Return-Path: <ingwie2000@googlemail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 24103 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2013 14:35:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 24 Oct 2013 14:35:28 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ingwie2000@googlemail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ingwie2000@googlemail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 74.125.83.54 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ingwie2000@googlemail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.83.54 mail-ee0-f54.google.com  
Received: from [74.125.83.54] ([74.125.83.54:50433] helo=mail-ee0-f54.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 8F/9A-10840-F2039625 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:35:28 -0400
Received: by mail-ee0-f54.google.com with SMTP id t10so961591eei.13
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
        bh=bFrPHLFKRrt3F86XFiXzEv3kWPB2nySKTgTARPqnaPo=;
        b=nbH0vBPYrIyfljA9n9V0gzfx+LHumPfZH4Da1W3Mi5OqO93jS9f6CjwwQB1Plps+ph
         nq0p22hXouiONf0tksU/tThjNspzopDKQi24WudYemM5wGJ0OLWgFc4wwrjiE+LImlIS
         a53CBo/ZvwcL23+eZ0CxSBw4Mx5CrDVylYoydSr2kI/6rGq7iLZkof6eEl8sR17ObRDJ
         MxCiGzl5UMzr4f/J7VaDcvngSZHI8CxKO6gNEZl1vCqklckhLIW2vbo5QZl4joAsuW4N
         u3ECZCt/7cPP7yCKA0gVwps7rP769knclmQ0AsFYXOABQS6btAel0RzUXYy2Y/tWJyXe
         fzyw==
X-Received: by 10.15.77.132 with SMTP id p4mr2699249eey.95.1382625325264;
        Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p200300514a049f00993901c7a4eac158.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (p200300514A049F00993901C7A4EAC158.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:51:4a04:9f00:9939:1c7:a4ea:c158])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i1sm5207878eeg.0.2013.10.24.07.35.24
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
In-Reply-To: <CAMUwpuTE5s39cPo-FdsLvKXQd6TMHHmHnsjorJU+GQb19FPtcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:35:23 +0200
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>,
 Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>,
 Developers List PHP Mailing <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A28BC86D-37A7-4400-8F06-C6E4745D03E0@googlemail.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> <CAMUwpuTE5s39cPo-FdsLvKXQd6TMHHmHnsjorJU+GQb19FPtcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Vote] Keywords as identifiers
From: ingwie2000@googlemail.com (Kevin Ingwersen)

Hello there! I just recently joined the mailing list - what is this vote =
about?
Kind regards, Kevin Ingwersen
Am 24.10.2013 um 15:37 schrieb Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net>:

> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>>=20
>>>> Zeev
>>>=20
>>> As said, if anyone has a good idea how to improve the =
implementation,
>> I'd
>>> be happy to implement it.
>>>=20
>>> (I really can't imagine a better way...)
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>=20
> I'm all +1 with that.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Julien.Pauli