Re: T_IMPORT vs. T_USE

Andi Gutmans wrote: > Hi Johannes, Our preference would be to stick to "import" because I > think the perception many will have of "use" is that it also includes > files (just based on some other languages). That said I agree that > compatibility would be an issue here. In fact it's even somewhat of > an issue with "namespace" which is probably also used quite a bit > esp. in relation to XML. > > What I'd like to do is see if it's feasible to support reserved words > as identifiers. It should be possible but we need to see if it makes > sense, how it affects consistency, and if we do it what identifiers > we'd do it for (or all?). This would be pretty easy, in a hackish way, by adding a whole bunch of duplicate rules T_FUNCTION T_STRING, T_FUNCTION T_IMPORT, T_FUNCTION T_NAMESPACE and so on. A more robust way would be to move to lemon/re2c but I'm not volunteering to do this (yet?) :) Greg