> > What you propose is `Foo::escape()` (static), as a language construct. >
I have changed the RFC, I wrote about it. Please read the description. There is no more static calls, there is no hacks with not fully qualified name. If any templating engine does that, I'd suggest opening an issue on their > issue tracker to make their implementation non-static instead. > Sorry, I don't understand what do you mean here. This is not related to any template engine, this was just an analogy. adding more custom AST for something that is already working very well in > userland via functions. > Users that know how and when to escape are already using appropriate > functions for that. > Yes. The function are present and they are working very well. And users are already using that functions. But the problem is not in presence of functions. Why do you repeat the same again? This is not the problem. The problem is that these functions should be called everywhere manually, and there is no error when these functions are not called. And this RFC proposes a solution - call a function automatically.
