Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114060
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c-CEZycXeigN9zqsFyZGMxDWVT_YU6h_OMrvORE_qLk3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM6PR07MB66184EA01CF9B375E44C3D53F9689@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAF+90c_N=DsskYuT_i_C473dk+MrvsLRt3gzPM120A9yjyCZeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM6PR07MB66186811B63B4FBDF94AD4B3F9779@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAF+90c9eV0mQWjueLgejP_ezft=J7XHfebcdqWbH8xpS-R8NGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c-zqHdATW7tM=+OTp79dztU7m3BxO3RUgtPxe8rH0aZ7w@mail.gmail.com> <66e4d926-0d3a-4588-b5a6-ddd863de3ecf@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <66e4d926-0d3a-4588-b5a6-ddd863de3ecf@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:21:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c_xaSkPx-fKSNR9=44c4a52Hfqasq18npiSnpiXv9Ts5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000027aac905c006efb8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Namespaced in bundled extensions
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--00000000000027aac905c006efb8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 5:39 PM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021, at 9:52 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> > >> > All symbols defined in the extension should be part of the top-level
> > >> namespace or a sub-namespace.
> > >>
> > >> This should be clarified - do you mean **the extension's** top-level
> > >> namespace (e.g. OpenSSL) instead of the global namespace? I assume the
> > >> former.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Indeed, that's what I meant. I've added the extra word.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Nikita
> > >
> >
> > I've now added an explicit section regarding namespace collisions to the
> > RFC, and tweaked some of the examples (String\contains, Array\contains).
> >
> > If there's no further feedback I'll open voting soon.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nikita
>
> Thanks, Nikita.
>
> Only one remaining question/comment/request from my end: In the "Migration
> of existing symbols" section, can you clarify explicitly that this RFC does
> not preclude such migration proposals in the future?  The reading of the
> previous section could easily be taken in the future to mean "and existing
> code is stuck where it is forever", even if that's not the intent.
>
> Eg, it's fine that the RFC does not propose mass-migrating all str_*
> functions to Str\*, but if someone in the future proposes doing that
> migration (with shims/aliases), that should be able to stand on its own
> merits.  I want to preempt anyone trying to respond in such a discussion
> "the original RFC said they wouldn't move, so you can't do this migration
> RFC now," because I'm sure someone will try to use that angle in the future
> should such a proposal appear. :-)
>

Yeah, I definitely didn't want to imply that such a migration can't happen
in the future. I've now moved this into a "Future Scope" section (
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions#future_scope).
Hopefully that makes it clear that a followup RFC can deal with this
question.

Regards,
Nikita

--00000000000027aac905c006efb8--