Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109648
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANOvohpz5OzHZSxdABncBXRQfeF-XnKqpK8BBDQ8OeT+jBL96w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANOvohpz5OzHZSxdABncBXRQfeF-XnKqpK8BBDQ8OeT+jBL96w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:40:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuSYhNSM7fEWnXtcTKe91d0x7cHHiFF=0exTCPmKYgtMxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Randall <markyr@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP Namespace Policy
From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 12:21, Mark Randall <markyr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rather than seek to demand everything be moved into namespaces, I have
> instead written this RFC as something that would form a policy
> guideline for future development of the engine and those extensions
> which are directly managed by internals.

> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_namespace_policy

Hi Mark,

Everything is a trade-off.

Putting core functions under a namespace makes those core functions
harder to use, as people would need to 'use' those functions to make
them available in their current namespace.

Even assuming the reasons in the RFC are correct, the tradeoff between
them and 'making core functions harder to use' does not seem a great
tradeoff to make.

Another benefit of having core PHP symbols in the root namespace is
that it means we can avoid having the discussion of what the namespace
naming rules should be. Again, the tradeoff of having to spend time on
that discussion of how to name things vs a possible small benefit of
having new symbols under a namespace, seems a bad tradeoff.

Is there anything you want to add to the RFC to change that view?

> This RFC would establish the protocol for a registry, upon
> which internals and core extension authors can, as part of their RFC, ...

This is a direct suggestion of how to slow down productivity from the
CIA "Simple sabotage field manual"*:

(11) General interference with Organizations and Production
  (b) Managers and supervisors
    (13) Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing
instructions, pay checks, and so on. See that three people have to
approve everything where one would do.

Even if you think namespaces might help a little, I don't think
introducing a new procedure for RFCs would be worth that cost.

cheers
Dan
Ack


* "Simple sabotage field manual" -
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/CleanedUOSSSimpleSabotage_sm.pdf
Note, the CIA still had the name OSS when published.