Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109716 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 84536 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2020 13:35:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 20 Apr 2020 13:35:51 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB241804D3 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 05:07:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wm1-f41.google.com (mail-wm1-f41.google.com [209.85.128.41]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 05:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-f41.google.com with SMTP id z6so11097136wml.2 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 05:07:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=beberlei-de.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LVMtZeU96nDw2WAXmRwQ1RiGtMjUjuKtBza72CUFWgI=; b=sT9Q1wRSN9W/k1K6nylJKM608b17GXbbyyn0g+nT3zra7HIhY4hU/78dcsZyMOMYiP wV6Cd/BIs2Ow9lZkCtOqus+anq/wF4NRiSLZUksSjuexGEeJacPMwn+m91FhMRRpthtM 0DEI1PI71KaF/8hTNtZFL78fimc4/sb48rSGzX/qTkYi7bVeAmRpZ7wUozfpN4phgMYg xn4lO6KuMeXHLEFKK7zfzH477lbRBlbvop3mn9grt4TpT6obhinUhCwnSK1otiJWEEZZ 8D3IM67MF3thdCeLQ+j86koKDuQDm5k3WPYM2hNOJ+TnkgA/xdWPGcFEE3kl6kTa/jmP 0fQg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LVMtZeU96nDw2WAXmRwQ1RiGtMjUjuKtBza72CUFWgI=; b=ckQa0pQDqQ1UE2kYrWNvySjjYeL6SmWfW5G3dTd3Cr/ECltvFLV2kfYOgn/ZihI/4A rcO0qZjuWYdg7QSOpnQclOx9gMB7pW21KmM8TEVJ5LAid5TQRacU5V8th5WqzITOeboW k4a/ha+NJnbOe/3ZKi5k8l/DR4Se0Dl36LiOeHQ2TEQ6goGj0yfr2+XGE0P/TfuX4BD0 xOO/rS5TZQm02FXzpfmVHKwHLHahAP8y8dbzPFQlKPaoT0RPVzlleqUZra1I+aYZY+Zx udoVDQ9zoesa5q2XvNA+8hrHPCat2Cqii0H9mYmCrYdGS2IcosDuEC0ZrVC7Y3Y80XV+ tqFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuY5vVLiJeSe99Tr8UHflGzr6Apk+1bJu+1PizCmDNefBAEvL9tX CDBqyRZw5g99IN4j2P4/sTqpVMVi6X+y5zni41Zrvw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJspJPdpdTJEhzueGNy69kJL3Qndts1nl25WaCPKRnlit35N8EbbmpuUq8cAWW+q0yeCEzZ/xmiBgYse2I8SFM= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4946:: with SMTP id w67mr18098343wma.38.1587384417380; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 05:06:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 14:06:46 +0200 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Brzuchalski?= Cc: PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000051ffcc05a3b7bc3b" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] PHP Namespace in core From: kontakt@beberlei.de (Benjamin Eberlei) --00000000000051ffcc05a3b7bc3b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Micha=C5=82, George, On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:29 PM Micha=C5=82 Brzuchalski < michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi internals, > > I hope you're doing well. > > I'd like to announce the PHP Namespace in core RFC for discussion. > The RFC is authored by me together with George Peter Banyard and it's > purpose > is nothing more like to allow the use of PHP Namespace in the core. > > The RFC is described at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php-namespace-in-core I think the php namespace for core is important to have, especially for features that have more than a single, but multiple classes, grouping them in a PHP internal namespace will be helpful to avoid weird prefixing. With the Attributes RFC in mind, an earlier draft has used the namespace PHP\Attributes that a few contributors rightly mentioned is a bad idea without project wide standardization first. For my taste, the RFC is great except the "A chance to clean up poor design/naming decisions" section. It goes into politics and controversial ideas that essentially are outside the scope of the RFC itself. So while SPL and Reflection would benefit if we had the namespace before those APIs, I am not sure they drive down the point of why we need this: a.) Instead of changing SPL I believe most would pretty much agree that we just need a complete replacement with a better API (pointing towards phpds here might be a better example) b.) Moving some new parts of Reflection into the namespace while keeping others in the main namespace is extremely confusing, and we shouldn't confuse users that way. Realistically this is an issue thats not going to be changed. I do like the Frame example, similar to token_get_all returning an array, debug_backtrace could benefit from an object based representation. I would reluctantly call it a "toy example", it is an actual example or not? greetings Benjamin > > > Best Regards, > Micha=C5=82 Brzuchalski > --00000000000051ffcc05a3b7bc3b--