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.h...@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, 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
>
--
Guilherme Blanco
Lead Architect at E-Block
