Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127300
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 15:18:54 +0200
To: Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>
Cc: "Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]" <imsop.php@rwec.co.uk>, internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Nested Classes
In-Reply-To: <386b4359-be5b-4872-b2c1-c8211a08d7dd@app.fastmail.com>
References: <aae32397-0567-417f-adbe-6b663d5c49ae@app.fastmail.com>
 <9c4ac301-dfb2-49da-90e5-37a2824fc4e3@app.fastmail.com>
 <AM8P250MB0170330066F90E056EBA76F8E2D82@AM8P250MB0170.EURP250.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <5b1e6d70-a1c9-455c-93d3-6b22cf1fef11@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAF-mU4zuja0XfemEyC8sJs=+in6Q6F3An7fzWB9+1o31o=Y-8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <efcac45a-60ac-4145-b012-72d5fef0090c@app.fastmail.com>
 <52d84a5b-09d3-4e42-9620-a62fb239c21e@app.fastmail.com>
 <09a82882-f1ee-4bdb-8a27-e46144a711f1@app.fastmail.com>
 <706e22d7-94eb-44bd-a280-f629ba93b630@app.fastmail.com>
 <03a5b9a8-9fe1-4656-ab04-dd58669488b3@app.fastmail.com>
 <158a5d7c-8ef6-4b5f-b8ef-593879a7a896@bastelstu.be>
 <a2f7ddb0-868e-49d6-b9fe-58d67ec15b08@app.fastmail.com>
 <c70b3646-72ac-45bf-82bc-54c35c69b7b7@bastelstu.be>
 <72ef8352-2afb-4024-b4ae-857fcd94edd6@app.fastmail.com>
 <213a8711-adbc-42b7-bcb8-86e64cb22cf2@bastelstu.be>
 <5A723310-1AB6-4D4A-88CC-52EC4E81AE5C@rwec.co.uk>
 <681845d2-ff1e-4ab8-97b2-50fecfdcb62b@bastelstu.be>
 <386b4359-be5b-4872-b2c1-c8211a08d7dd@app.fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee6138afb6bfb9e2ee8abde298dcebde@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

Am 2025-05-06 22:04, schrieb Rob Landers:
> I think these are fundamental problems (if they are a problem at all) 
> with how PHP currently does namespaces and names.

I don't think that this is a fundamental problem of namespaces and 
names. Ilija solved the naming conflict issue in his file-private class 
proposal.

> I'm curious if you would vote "no" for namespace visibility as well?

I cannot answer this question. PHP doesn't have namespace visibility and 
whether or not I would be in favor of a proposal depends greatly on the 
proposed semantics. In the current nested classes RFC, the proposed 
semantics for `private` classes are inconsistent with how `private` in 
PHP currently behaves, which makes it unacceptable to me.

> For everyone else who voted "no"; I would sincerely love to know the 
> reason. Even if you just email me directly; it would really help me 
> understand what can be improved in any future RFCs.

I unfortunately didn't have the time to follow the discussion and think 
about the RFC in depth. Besides the `private` semantics, the autoloading 
impact is also a no for me, since to be able to properly use nested 
classes, a composer update would be required, so that composer’s 
autoloading implementation becomes aware of nested classes to properly 
load them. This means that if a package uses nested classes, it will 
*silently* be broken until the *consumer* updates their composer 
installation. I don't think it is currently possible to define a minimum 
composer version as part of a package’s dependencies.

Best regards
TIm Düsterhus