Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20589
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
	s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=Md5Sw+3qQ12MaRwGAkYBjEMd7aw8V6AocerSX0KgLAvSx4ND2f9YCqotGsQ14euPhQ8AhzOXjuq+3QXwQbdENxvaEY+FW0LHqDAROG8RYG1qG/mPYxidKcFOc/4RvCNXe2JqElRkpppV/zR3mdGHQz5VwX2AdbkG66sr0Cs0V2k=
Message-ID: <cb6d76e90511261319l852bff3nb1b2e7974812ec7b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 16:19:18 -0500
To: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <4388CE54.6060606@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20.BA.56276.A1BC8834@pb1.pair.com> <4388CE54.6060606@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: namespace separator ideas
From: matt.friedman@gmail.com (Matt Friedman)

Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
have a nice idea for the namespace separator idea. Sorry to barge in
on your conversation but I think the following has value.

What about something like <- or <:: or even just <:

It makes sense to me because a namespace is akin to a parent of the
class and in a diagram I would use an arrow to point to the parent
from the child. At least there is some type of parent <- child
relation.

examples:
Namespace <:: ClassName
or
Namespace <- ClassName
or
Namespace <: ClassName

Unless I'm missing something these symbols should not conflict with
other ones. They also have more a PHP "feel".

This is the most semantically pleasing for me and it mirrors a common
convention and represents the actual relationship. In the language it
is nice when the symbols have an appearance representative of the
actual relationship.

When I see \ I think of ugly Windoze file paths. Also ::: seems awkward som=
ehow.

Matt.

On 11/26/05, Jessie Hernandez <jrhernandez05@gmail.com> wrote:
> I personally don't like any of these, but I just thought of this one:
> "%%". Don't think it'll cause any problems at all, and look at the code:
>
> <?php
> $a =3D new name1%%name2;
> $b =3D name1::name2; // I see the difference clearly
> ?>
>
>
> What do you think? ":::" is more intuitive for me, but "%%" is an
> acceptable alternative...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jessie
>
>
> Greg Beaver wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have only one caveat with the \ separator, which is that it is a
> > little bit too similar to division with /, and can result in some
> > confusing code like:
> >
> > <?php
> > namespace name1 {
> >     class name2{}
> > }
> > define('name1', 1);
> > define('name2', 2);
> >
> > $a =3D new name1\name2;
> > $b =3D name1/name2;
> > ?>
> >
> > The same issue exists with all colon based separators (that sounds bad
> > when read the wrong way...) because of the ternary operator, and :: wit=
h
> > static classes/methods.
> >
> > <?php
> > namespace name1 {
> >     class name2{}
> > }
> > define('name1', 1);
> > define('name2', 2);
> > // this may be a parse error with the current namespace patch,
> > // but need not be if we use ->
> > class name1
> > {
> >     const name2 =3D 1;
> > }
> >
> > $a =3D new name1:::name2;
> > $b =3D name1::name2; // do you see the difference?  I get confused
> > ?>
> >
> > What about using the T_OBJECT_OPERATOR?  This is a parse error in
> > existing versions, and also implies some separation.
> >
> > <?php
> > namespace name1 {
> >     class name2{}
> > }
> > define('name1', 1);
> > define('name2', 2);
> > // this may be a parse error with the current namespace patch,
> > // but need not be if we use ->
> > class name1
> > {
> >     const name2 =3D 1;
> > }
> >
> > $a =3D new name1->name2;
> > $b =3D name1::name2;
> > ?>
> >
> > I also proposed on IRC using \\ as this is similar to netware driver
> > separators:
> >
> > <?php
> > define('name1', 1);
> > define('name2', 2);
> >
> > $a =3D new name1\\name2;
> > $b =3D name1/name2;
> > ?>
> >
> > However, I know Andrei hated this :).  I very much prefer the use of ->=
,
> > as this has the same advantage as :: of "rhyming" with current syntax.
> >
> > Greg
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


--
-- Matt Friedman