Hi,
The following part of the proposal is problematic: Allow keywords in definition
of classes, functions, const, etc.
class KEYWORD {}
interface KEYWORD {}
trait KEYWORD {}
function KEYWORD() {}
const KEYWORD = 0;
use Foo as KEYWORD;
Under your proposal, the following code will compile without notice, but will
have a different behaviour from what the programmer intended:
```php
class Int { }
const PRINT = 2;
const YIELD = 3;
function foo(Int $b) {
return PRINT + YIELD;
}
```
If it is important to allow to define classes, etc. with a keyword as name, I
suggest to force the programmer to say explicitly “Yes, it is really what I
want”. For example, something like the following:
```php
class namespace\Int { }
const namespace\PRINT = 2;
```
Another point which is problematic, is to allow `namespace` as a namespace
parts, since `namespace\foo`, although interpreted as a namespace-relative
name, could be intended to be a qualified name by the programmer.
—Claude
> Le 16 juin 2020 à 10:52, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Hi internals,
>
> Inspired by the recent discussion on reserved keyword reservation, I'd like
> to propose the following RFC:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaced_names_as_token
>
> This RFC makes two related changes: Treat namespaced names as a single
> token, which enables use of reserved keywords inside them. And remove
> reserved keyword restrictions from various declarations.
>
> The RFC comes with a small backwards compatibility break related to names
> that include whitespace, but will hopefully reduce the backwards
> compatibility impact of future reserved keyword additions.
>
> Regards,
> Nikita
