Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113166
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAFMT4Nq5Ai2_oA02jJ6GJUu4dDRtEvsBWa=_mze_YHbzNW0vfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <60256200.1c69fb81.46e68.6437SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAAKU0un-vFD+VE0+hPTX6S4XWap_37RP9tNpyzkh3NMarFeiGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKw4QcogrucjC9XAszb02Qpd5E8cuZyVZ33n=fUOaq378g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <83fb79ae-13ff-09e7-83ac-3dcf4da4c3ad@processus.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 17:25:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPKYkKw4QcogrucjC9XAszb02Qpd5E8cuZyVZ33n=fUOaq378g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Proposal: namespace the SPL
From: pierre-php@processus.org (Pierre)

Le 11/02/2021 à 18:48, Chase Peeler a écrit :
> I think Spl makes sense (there might be a debate over whether it should be
> Spl or SPL though). How feasible is it to create generate a deprecation
> notice when the global version is used? I assume the hope is to eventually
> move away from using those, and I don't think that's a horrible BC break
> given that users have enough time to prepare for it.

Hello,

For what it worth, I think that Spl is both ugly to read (yes, I like 
things not only to be semantic, but elegant as well) and hard to type on 
my keyboard (OK subjective point here, both are actually).

"Spl" does mean somethings, but I'd prefer something more generic such 
as "std" or "standard" or "system", or even "stdlib". And it's an 
opinion, and we all have one. Even having lowercased namespace names for 
PHP standard library wouldn't bother me much: it would make it 
consistent in reading (e.g. `use std\array\first` for example, vs 
\array_first()` vs `use Spl\Array\first`). OK stupid point here, but 
fact is I don't really care, I just try to make a point here: we are 
free to invent new things, or get old things from other languages. We 
have all the possibilities of the world and beyond offering themselves 
to us, the only limit is our imagination.

I disagree about narrow scope: if we / you don't think about the future, 
each narrow iteration will only get more and more inconsistent, each 
step will be a flame ware about naming, and no convention or consistency 
will emerge. And it will be slow. I will retire before I'll see an Array 
class or a `collection` namespace. And I'm not even that old! This will 
fatigue people, and kill any kind of good faith or good sense we still 
yet have.

I think that namespacing, even if its implementation starts narrow (this 
make sense) should be thought thoroughly with a wider scope, with a 
global scheme even more. It should be voted with a complete view of what 
it will become, and how that makes stuff consistent across the whole 
actual and future SPL.

I know this has not much chances to happen, because people always 
disagree for purely subjective reasons (beauty of names, ease of typing, 
semantic meaning of stuff, weird keyboard layout, or just because some 
people don't like when it's other people's ideas which get to be chosen 
or voted for) anyhow, I think that narrow scope will only gets PHP 
standard library farther from its goal than help it.

This was my 2 cents,

Best regards,

--

Pierre