I thought there was one already? https://wiki.php.net/rfc/group_use_declarations
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 9:01 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com < guilhermebla...@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
