On Nov 01 13:43:14, Alexander Schrijver wrote: > On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 01:36:24PM +0100, Etienne Kneuss wrote: > > > It's the policy: > > > > There are two reasons this term will stay. It is a tip of the hat to > > > > the amount of PHP work that came out of Israel, and it is a good > > > > > > > > reminder that there are a lot of other languages in the world. People > > > > whose first language is not English, myself included, are forced to work > > > > with unfamiliar terms every day. I wouldn't mind having a few more > > > > > > > > non-English identifiers in PHP actually. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, and a third reason, I like it. > > > > > > There is some reason this policy will change after i write this new > > > tokenizer? > > > > Yes, there is a reason: > > > > As it was explained before, lemon would not display token names but > > actual token "values". So instead of "Unexpected T_PAABLAH" it would say > > "Unexpected '::' ..." > > But the lesson Rasmus was telling us about would go away. Yet, this is one of > the reasons the token is being kept. I am confused. Are you telling me this is > a lesson for the programmers to be learned? Not for the users?
I believe that what Rasmus meant is that a simple _renaming_ of this token was not justified. I don't think that he would be against a parser change that would bring much more to the table, solely because it would make this gem disappear (at least I hope). But then again, even though Felipe did an amazing job with this lemon switch, few problems still prevent this change from happening in a near future. Best, -- Etienne Kneuss http://www.colder.ch -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
