Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109650 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 81440 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2020 13:47:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (76.75.200.58) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2020 13:47:14 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:17:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 87.81.129.66 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PHP Namespace Policy From: marandall@php.net (Mark Randall) Message-ID: On 15/04/2020 12:40, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > 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. Dan, I see this being as simple as the RFC author stating that they intend to use a specific namespace such as: \PHP\Tokenizer Followed by updating a wiki page once it's been approved to list the namespace and the RFC which approved it. In that respect it would be no different than arguing over any other name which can already happen. Mark Randall marandall@php.net