Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:31584
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.184.235 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=FubxQuNnp3SZb53Ik2DRXswhZxbCa8HzMERpF+5Ww8meFJkICwC2DUeP54n1Bf/8ed3i1Fwfk4+c/d/qFqOoINGEHg12j2FtAq/qMbur2DMU2vU0liB7ouPwixKNjEn7WJvRyBe5oYWnjrWnQdfRxo09dVE3c0MxXN/IAKfJ3h4=
Message-ID: <dc2522540708151013n37ae35c5sbb9d2873dc57d713@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:13:07 -0400
To: "Marc Gear" <marcgear@gmail.com>
Cc: "PHP Internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <6094eac50708150709o6d1fe42bx3449af2bc1b7f54d@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <46BE14B1.5050209@zend.com>
	 <101178402.20070814174515@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <bcb7aa500708140949y5382b1d2m915252b790d5431a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b5f7bf6c0708141048t725aa5ebpebdd1687c5e1ca5a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <6094eac50708150709o6d1fe42bx3449af2bc1b7f54d@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
From: olivier.hill@gmail.com ("Olivier Hill")

Marc,

This is not the right reason for naming it namespace.

Example:

Say I am writing a new language. I want to introduce something similar
to functions. But since OO is popular and sounds nice.. why not call
it method on an object?

People are asking for objects.. I'll just give them objects.

It's not about the popularity of a word, but the meaning of it. If it
resembles more of a package, let's call it package (as it does
currently, namespace should be nested.. but that's my opinion).

Regards,
Olivier

On 8/15/07, Marc Gear <marcgear@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW I am for "namespaces" because:
>
> - the functionality mentioned most often as missing in PHP is
> 'namespaces'. People want 'namespaces' (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP#Criticism)
> - What they really want is no more clashing
> classes/functions/variables when they integrate third party apps
> (which the patch provides)
> - What they also want is no more clashing objects/functions when a new
> PHP extension becomes installed by default (Date anyone?) (which the
> patch provides)
> - PHP convention is one class-per-file,  ergo, following convention
> would mean braces are not required anyway.
> - Dmitri gets the kudos for introducing PHPs most asked for feature,
> instead of 'packages' which no one has asked for.
> - The patch introduces naming spaces. at a per-file level.
> - Packages suggests a connection between folder structure and file
> contents of which there is none.
>
> Purely from a PR point of view, 'namespaces' is going to be a winner
> amongst users and 90% of people will wish for a braces implementation,
> while 'packages'  is likely to generate more demands for something
> called 'namespaces'
> --
> Marc Gear
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>