On 10/18/07, Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Main problem I have right now after digging deeper is that any such "fix" in > the parser will mean that tokenizers and syntax highlighters will not treat > keywords like "import" correctly. Fixing this would require them to do > parsing which in many cases you don't want to do. There are a lot of > utilities and tools which depend on such behavior. > Even if it's just for this reason it may be better if we stick to the "a > keyword is a keyword" rule and don't try and outsmart ourselves (other > languages like C have discovered the same issues and stuck to the keyword > only rule too). So it may make most sense to go ahead and use "use".
If we stick to this rule, we can't add new keywords in minor/patch versions. (x.y+1 or x.y.z+1) as it break BC. With import, a lot of codes is affected even if they use "import" as method name (said already, add symfony to the list). I really don't care about use or import but for what I see, import is going to break (as said already) a lot of apps/codes out ther (add symfony to the list). I would prefer Stan's patch to allow keyword to be used as class/method/function name. At the very least (the patch has unsolvable issues), I have to agree with Andi, we should just go with "use" (codesearch returns less than 10 results :). Cheers, --Pierre -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
