Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:31829 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59781 invoked by uid 1010); 22 Aug 2007 09:16:01 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59766 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2007 09:16:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Aug 2007 09:16:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.94.239.5 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.94.239.5 jdi.jdi-ict.nl Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.94.239.5] ([82.94.239.5:35808] helo=jdi.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 7C/A0-53128-FCEFBC64 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:16:01 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l7M9FrpN018082; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:15:53 +0200 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:15:54 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: derick@kossu.ez.no To: "M. Sokolewicz" cc: Gregory Beaver , internals Mailing List In-Reply-To: <46CBFDD5.8020908@php.net> Message-ID: References: <46CBA2B6.2010600@chiaraquartet.net> <46CBFDD5.8020908@php.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PATCH] bracketed namespace, unset import, removal of namespace blah; From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, M. Sokolewicz wrote: > I'm not sure if this is the best way to take it, to be honest I had to > re-read your post 2x to figure out what was actually going on and why. > The unset import part is odd and not very transparent to the average > user (imo). Sure, with good documentation you could solve that, but > imo we should look for easier to understand syntax instead. I like the > idea, but it adds a lot of complexity with (as far as I can tell) > little gain vs. the original 1-file-1-namespace patch. I have exactly the same feeling... is it really necesary to make this complex again? I don't care much about the namespace definition syntax, but the concept that was just posted here has IMO a big WTF factor. KISS people... Derick