Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:31648
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.94.56 as permitted sender)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:21:02 +0200
Reply-To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
Message-ID: <1154524236.20070816222102@marcus-boerger.de>
To: Ralph Schindler <ralph@smashlabs.com>
CC: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>, 
	'PHP Internals' <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <46C4964A.4070302@smashlabs.com>
References: <46BE14B1.5050209@zend.com> <101178402.20070814174515@marcus-boerger.de> <46C1EB6C.8000601@zend.com> <46C4964A.4070302@smashlabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger)

Hello Ralph,

  thanks for the very good explanation, but don't expect to get anything
back.... it is the same arguemnt I tried already - Expectations based on
experience from existing languages. Rather then reachign for the straw of
non existing features in other languages.

best regards
marcus

Thursday, August 16, 2007, 8:24:10 PM, you wrote:

> Stas,
>    Namespace implementations for languages have been around for decades 
> in one form or another.  People use the languages they are used to 
> developing in to demonstrate their points on how it should work, and 
> what it should be called when it works a certain way. Its 2007. Given 
> that we have the benefit of seeing how other languages have attempted to 
> solve the problem over the years, we can then devise our own 
> implementation to satisfy the demand.  We cannot ignore other languages 
> implementations that got us to where we are today in language/compiler 
> design.

> At the end of the day, there are two camps of people for naming: 
> packages vs. namespaces.

> You seem to be missing the point that having braces is not for vanity's 
> sake, and is truly important to the implementation thus lending itself 
> to actual naming of the implementation.

> a) BY NOT HAVING BRACES you have subscribed to FILE BASED scope 
> termination, thus tying the SCOPING of namespaces to a FILE.

> b) BY HAVING BRACES you would be subscribing to a model that terminates 
> scope of namespace constructs to current scope they are defined within.

> The former lends itself to being called a "package" the later lends 
> itself to being called a "namespace".

> You did not answer my other questions on multiple namespaces per file, 
> and interactive php namespace usage.

> -ralph



> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>>> OO. And anyway, are we struggling to find excuses here? Can we in no way
>>> ever at least try to be consistent in anything we do? That JS argument 
>>> is an
>> 
>> How "consistent" had acquired a meaning of "doing it my way"? There's 
>> nothing inconsistent in the name "namespace" and it is very consistent 
>> with what people understand - I quoted wiki on that. I'm still waiting 
>> for that non-"C++ does it with braces" argument btw.




Best regards,
 Marcus