Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92360
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFp73XvLZW3Q_DRc3hZSMHF5mrvDvnTKuVqgVKrwpw6NVkTraw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFp73XvLZW3Q_DRc3hZSMHF5mrvDvnTKuVqgVKrwpw6NVkTraw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 09:38:24 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKSD0w7SQRPnnHPtneLt8QwRyM+=3MG3-aSqMtRFeK-5ka35Xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cd3feecc02d0530902ec6
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Trying to fix "use" language inconsistencies
From: cornelius.howl@gmail.com (Lin Yo-An)

--001a113cd3feecc02d0530902ec6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I thought there was one already?
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/group_use_declarations

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 9:01 AM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com <
guilhermeblanco@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi internals,
>
>
> It all started with a PR over doctrine/annotations (
> https://github.com/doctrine/annotations/pull/69), where a contributor
> decided to propose supporting group use support.
>
> The issue starts with this, which it is perfectly supported:
>
> use Foo\Bar, Foo\Woo;
>
> While multiple group uses are not:
>
> use Foo\{Bar, Baz}, Qux\{Corge, Grault};
>
> Then I decided to see what is really supported by the newly introduced
> group use. According to the grammar, these are the same lines:
>
> use Foo\Bar, Foo\Baz;
> use Foo\{Bar, Baz};
>
> use function Foo\Bar\baz, Foo\Bar\qux;
> use function Foo\Bar\{baz, qux};
> use Foo\Bar\{function baz, function qux};
>
> However, this feature leads to an inconsistent behavior in the language.
> Mixed group use types are supported:
>
> use Foo\Bar\{Baz, function qux};
>
> While mixing use types are not:
>
> use Foo\Bar\Baz, function Foo\Bar\qux;
>
>
> This brings the question of whether we should continue this madness path of
> inconsistency or we start addressing inconsistencies one by one in the
> language.
> I'd like to propose options that we could fix this:
>
> - Remove mixed group use types support (this would become invalid: use
> Foo\{Bar, function baz};)
> - Add mixed use support, which would contradict the approach took by typed
> properties (this would require this approach: use function Foo\Bar\baz,
> function Foo\Bar\qux;)
>
> One of the approaches needs to be taken in order to support multiple group
> use, otherwise we have a reduce/reduce yacc error that can't be fixed
> (well, my yacc/compiler's knowledge hit a dead end there, without doubling
> all the grammar rules and taking an overly complex route). Ultimately, the
> question comes around if we should consider support of multiple group use.
> If positive, I'd suggest approach two (I already have a patch for that!
> =D).
>
>
> I'd like to gather opinions around this, so I can properly implement and
> propose a patch through an RFC process.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Guilherme Blanco
> Lead Architect at E-Block
>



-- 
Best Regards,

Yo-An Lin

--001a113cd3feecc02d0530902ec6--