Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114447
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABTDVhAr8gQ57Z9SWW0tvaPxGhCF6-2cDfZAAdq4mN7Do849+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKU0umy2+rOBT7LaCFPxFofwSpvqFFoKSYfoMf0v7Ph_hrO-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABTDVhBkFC35TVS1FzSRam29hypmGoLow2CAgtp1s_BaPvyn0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKU0u=v=SHTwXWZk8SVf_+UQuVWHTTrFynRsgQ5BOE_oUAfgQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c8RJX5DhSeh1HJXCEze9-4NFR-dHJygX7BQ0vFnExHCpQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c8RJX5DhSeh1HJXCEze9-4NFR-dHJygX7BQ0vFnExHCpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: Levi Morrison <levi.morrison@datadoghq.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 09:07:20 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAKU0ukaHX78AcQ9xCwnLjEeQfUTpUKnfOJHpTfz4mD50EQ2GQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Go Kudo <zeriyoshi@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Discussion: Object-scoped RNG
From: internals@lists.php.net ("Levi Morrison via internals")

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 8:58 AM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 4:51 PM Levi Morrison via internals <internals@li=
sts.php.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Also, I am happy to see that Nikita's rules for namespace assignment t=
o extensions have been approved. I'm going to use the `RNG` namespace.
>>
>> Just to be clear, you can only use `RNG` as a namespace if the
>> extension is named `ext/rng`. You cannot add namespaced things to
>> `standard` nor `SPL` nor `Core`.
>
>
> This is not correct. The namespace policy RFC specifically and explicitly=
 allows namespacing of components in standard/core, see https://wiki.php.ne=
t/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions#core_standard_spl. Adding something =
under the RNG\ namespace inside ext/standard is fine (modulo due diligence =
on the specific choice of namespace name).
>
> Regards,
> Nikita

It says:

> Because these extensions combine a lot of unrelated or only tangentially =
related functionality, symbols should not be namespaced under the Core, Sta=
ndard or Spl namespaces. Instead, these extensions should be considered as =
a collection of different components, and should be namespaced according to=
 these.

The second sentence is not well defined. I am confident this was
discussed as part of the RFC discussion. The understanding I, and at
least a few others, took away is that it means these extensions can't
namespace anything until another RFC defines that second sentence.

In other words, the RFC says you cannot name things in those
extensions with the namespace "Core", "Standard", nor "SPL", but it
doesn't define what you _can_ use.

This is really important. If the RFC author did not have this same
consensus then this is a MAJOR problem that needs immediate
discussion.

Levi Morrison