Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:31677
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.162.236 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:references;
        b=OPSVUN6/v3juVcTgEcai3BPi5k2qUiuouYQxCTFjHqjEUhhnqbBTJ1b+dN8tz5nZMtQ+iYtB5lREng4KfS15gh0kieLWoh1dMAsB0hF8jFOGC99kVPI2QoCIVNisMkcX7qafE6EjXowpW0zdkyUYRRfAQgWAj59RKTAjTeCbCIs=
Message-ID: <b9339a730708170545y270af078u93e90d255ae7c075@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:45:53 +0800
To: "M. Sokolewicz" <tularis@php.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <26.B4.34488.EC285C64@pb1.pair.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_126278_31923027.1187354753229"
References: <46BE14B1.5050209@zend.com> <fa0ons$40i$1@sea.gmane.org>
	 <46C3F4C4.5080008@zend.com> <fa0sj2$di3$1@sea.gmane.org>
	 <46C3F7D0.9010904@zend.com>
	 <d8269d910708160011x6d1ac2f5pa54b8e6678c96c57@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46C3FB3C.50104@zend.com>
	 <d8269d910708160115h38b83f3h8c7620693fb245e8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46C4777D.6010003@chiaraquartet.net>
	 <26.B4.34488.EC285C64@pb1.pair.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
From: diogin@gmail.com ("Jingcheng Zhang")

------=_Part_126278_31923027.1187354753229
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi,
  Has anyone thought of the keyword "phpspace"?

2007/8/17, M. Sokolewicz <tularis@php.net>:
>
> I've been reading this lengthy discussion and here's a sumup of what I
> found:
> - PHP's implementation is only a part of what most people expect to find
> when they hear "php has namespace support"
> - PHP's implementation looks a bit like JAVA's package support, and a
> bit like many other (differently names) features in other languages. It
> however does not match 1:1 to any of those.
>
> So, everyone here has agreed already that "namespaces" !=== PHP's
> implementation (it might ==, but not ===). Same goes for Package.
> I find the idea of Greg to be very good though, reading the original
> proposal, it often names things not "namespace" but simply "prefix".
> What do you do with your names? you use a prefix, you don't expect it to
> have "full namespace support just like [insert any other language
> here]", nor do you expect it to "be exactly like a JAVA package".
>
> When announced, you could simply state "PHP now has support for
> prefixing, PHP's own specific implementation of namespaces". Because
> that's what you have, you can complain that "according to the definition
> of [word] it _is_ that.", but you can't really. The "definition" of a
> word like namespace, package, etc. is not independent of its
> implementation in majorly used languages unfortunately. If you ask a
> random coder "what is a namespace", the answer will always be based on
> an implementation in a language the person uses/likes a lot. You can
> quote from wikipedia, but that doesn't really mean anything (sorry
> Stas), what we should try to do here is find the proper name which
> identifies the implementation we have for what it is.
>
> prefix Foo;
> alias Foo:Bar as Quux;
>
> Looks very good to me as it clearly shows what happens, internally and
> externally. It's not a namespace as such, it's not a package as such,
> it's simply what PHP _does_.
>
> I hope this will help the discussion steer away from the standard
> arguments that have been used constantly, and that will simply not change.
>
> - Tul
>
> Gregory Beaver wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > All of the debate over whether this is a true namespace implementation
> > is in my opinion completely bogus (translate: I think "namespace" is a
> > fine choice for the reserved word, and "package" is a dangerously
> > misleading choice), but since there is so much noisy dissent, I have an
> > alternative proposal I'd like to float:
> >
> > How about using the keyword "prefix" or "nameprefix" instead of
> > "namespace"?  This will be clearer and can be easily defined with 2
> > sentences similar to the original proposal: "All class and function
> > names inside the file are automatically prefixed with the
> > (prefix|nameprefix) name.  In other files, classes and functions can be
> > imported with different names (aliases) to eliminate naming conflicts or
> > reduce typing needed."
> >
> > I quote from the original "Simple Namespace Proposal" message by Dmitry:
> >
> > From the beginning:
> >> Main assumption of the model is that the problem that we are to solve
> is the
> >> problem of the very long class names in PHP libraries. We would not
> attempt
> >> to take autoloader's job or create packaging model - only make names
> >> manageable.
> >
> > From the middle:
> >> Namespace definition does the following:
> >> All class and function names inside are automatically prefixed with
> >> namespace name.
> >
> > As stated, because this proposal *only* defines a prefix for functions
> > and class names, it is not a packaging model.  All package models in
> > existence define some kind of self-contained entity that groups related
> > *files* and their contents together in a way that allows them to be
> > "packaged" into a single thing, like a jar, a PEAR .tgz, or a .phar
> > file.  This proposal does none of these things.  Simply because the
> > prefix is defined per-file does not a package make.  By the same logic,
> > using ".php" at the end of a file or ".dat" at the end of a file creates
> > special packages of php or dat information, because the extension
> > applies to the whole file at once.  Simply defining the contents of a
> > file does not imply any organization whatsoever.
> >
> > What the original proposal *does* do is provide a namespace prefix - it
> > defines a scope within which all names have a special prefix.  This is
> > not rocket science.
> >
> > <rant>On a personal note, if you feel you must reply to this thread
> > further, please follow this checklist:
> >
> > 1) is anything I am saying bring a new idea to the debate?
> > 2) is there a patch that converts my new idea into a reality attached to
> > the message?
> >
> > If you can't answer "yes" to either of these, please go immediately to
> > jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.</rant>
> >
> > Thank you to Dmitry for this much-needed idea.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Greg
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Jingcheng Zhang
Room 304, Dormitory 26 of Yuquan Campus, Zhejiang University
P.R.China

------=_Part_126278_31923027.1187354753229--