Re: Re: [RFC] Treat namespaced names as single token, relax reserved keyword restrictions

> > I have reduced the scope of this RFC to handle just the issue of > > namespaced names, without touching any other reserved keyword restrictions. > > As the discussion shows, those are trickier, with more cases of perceived > > ambiguity that may need to be mitigated. > > > > As this proposal is now a prerequisite for > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax, I have > > heard from a > > disturbing number of people that they might vote against this proposal, not > > because they disagree with it, but because that would prevent the adoption > > of the @@ attribute syntax. I'm not sure what to do about that... > > > > Heads up: I plan to open voting on this proposal tomorrow, unless there is > further feedback. One possibility would be to split it up into two separate RFCs: (This would probably be too short notice, and this isn't similar to any proposal in the past) 1. An Yes/No RFC requiring a 2/3 majority for accepting the amended @@ attribute syntax with the restriction the original RFC proposed (no whitespace&reserved words. I'd think that very few proponents of @@ had plans to mix whitespace with backslashes in attributes when reading that RFC, and it's extremely similar to the original attribute syntax change RFC. 2. A yes/no RFC for this RFC to affect everything except the choice of attribute syntax. (i.e. if 2 passes but not 1, we'd end up using <<Attribute\Name>> in 8..0 and forbidding <<Attribute \ Name>>) Still, my proposal seems like a dissatisfying one. Allowing future 3+-way votes to be re-voted once due to unexpected implementation concerns (when the original authors are among the authors of the amendment) with a 50% majority requirement (instead of 2/3) might help in the future, but would probably entail its own process vote for an extremely rare/narrow RFC situation. That wouldn't help with this RFC due to the feature freeze, and I think that situation's too rare to actually work out details and actually propose that amendment. P.S. I'm in favor of removing whitespace between tokens of names. - Tyson