On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Nikita Popov <[email protected]> wrote:
> I tend to agree with Johannes.
I tend to agree too but I never really liked this keywords restriction.
> Supporting different sets of keywords in
> different locations is pretty confusing. Imho we should add this kind of
> support only in places where a) we can support all keywords and b) it is
> unlikely that supporting keywords there will cause issues in the future.
b) can't be proofed, also the keyword problem being future ready is
also a shiny myth. It is a moving target.
> One such case are method names. Methods with keyword names are currently
> callable using $foo->array(), because the identifier after
> T_OBJECT_OPERATOR is always a T_STRING. But while you can call them, it is
> currently not possible to define them as real methods. Instead you need to
> forward them via __call magic, which is rather ugly. Internal classes on
> the other hand can and do define methods with reserved-keyword names. E.g.
> there is a Generator::throw() method.
This exact case is actually a very good reason to accept this proposal.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org