Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92413
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKSD0w7SQRPnnHPtneLt8QwRyM+=3MG3-aSqMtRFeK-5ka35Xg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFp73XvLZW3Q_DRc3hZSMHF5mrvDvnTKuVqgVKrwpw6NVkTraw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKSD0w7SQRPnnHPtneLt8QwRyM+=3MG3-aSqMtRFeK-5ka35Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFp73XsF2WU8DJMebBh17MAx3G+dkLgGU_viJQXvaU6XG6aOog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lin Yo-An <cornelius.howl@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fd402fdad990530c3b5ba
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Trying to fix "use" language inconsistencies
From: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com ("guilhermeblanco@gmail.com")

--001a113fd402fdad990530c3b5ba
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

You missed what I said.
You can do multiple single class/function/constant in a single statement,
but you cannot do multiple group use in a single statement. This:

use Foo\Bar,
    Foo\Baz\{Qux, Corge};

Regards,

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Lin Yo-An <cornelius.howl@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Guilherme Blanco
Lead Architect at E-Block

--001a113fd402fdad990530c3b5ba--