Re: T_IMPORT vs. T_USE

On 10/18/07, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> wrote: > Main problem I have right now after digging deeper is that any such "fix" in the > parser will mean that tokenizers and syntax highlighters will not treat keywords like > "import" correctly. Fixing this would require them to do parsing which in many cases you > don't want to do. There are a lot of utilities and tools which depend on such behavior. > Even if it's just for this reason it may be better if we stick to the "a keyword is a > keyword" rule and don't try and outsmart ourselves (other languages like C have discovered > the same issues and stuck to the keyword only rule too). So it may make most sense to go ahead and > use "use". If we stick to this rule, we can't add new keywords in minor/patch versions. (x.y+1 or x.y.z+1) as it break BC. With import, a lot of codes is affected even if they use "import" as method name (said already, add symfony to the list). I really don't care about use or import but for what I see, import is going to break (as said already) a lot of apps/codes out ther (add symfony to the list). I would prefer Stan's patch to allow keyword to be used as class/method/function name. At the very least (the patch has unsolvable issues), I have to agree with Andi, we should just go with "use" (codesearch returns less than 10 results :). Cheers, --Pierre