Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:33776
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain iamjochem.com from 194.109.193.121 cause and error)
Message-ID: <475713B2.4030802@iamjochem.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:10:10 +0100
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>
CC: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, 
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <alpine.DEB.0.98.0712042315260.20300@kossu.ez.no> <4755FB31.2050901@zend.com> <alpine.DEB.0.98.0712050940550.20300@kossu.ez.no> <4756E3AF.2070703@zend.com> <4756EC80.1070500@iamjochem.com> <4756F146.3050306@zend.com> <4756F740.3060800@iamjochem.com> <4757060A.8040008@zend.com>
In-Reply-To: <4757060A.8040008@zend.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Namespace
From: jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas)

Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> based on the reactions it has been recieving I would disagree. that is
>> not to say
>> that completing the baking process would not result in a wonderful
>> functional addition
>> to the language. I'm just advocating putting it on the backburner
>> until the cooking
>> time is complete.
> 
> So far I have yet to see an improvement proposal except for:
> 1. Let's do it with braces
> and
> 2. Multiple namespaces per file.
> 
> Neither of these doesn't make the concept "half-baked" if it's decided
> on either side - first being tiny syntax detail blown entirely out of
> proportion and second being technicality of little use for most people
> except for sites engaging in exotic performance practices they better
> didn't. Both do not have much to do with the conceptual level.\

even after I explained my [possibly dubious] use of the word "half-baked"
you seem to feel compelled to focus on the negative emotions the word
triggers. "half-baked" was the wrong word.

you can't use a concept unless it's implemented - and we are arguing the
implementation [details] not the concept. I believe that the implementation
needs a little ironing out ... what's the harm in taking the time to do this?
or at least taking the time to let consensus take hold?

> 
>> you have metrics to back that up? of course not because it's a
>> completely subjective
> 
> Metrics of what?

metrics that support your argument that namespaces will make code more
maintainable, offer better structure and cleaner code.

it was a rethorical question obviously because what consitutes better
structure, code cleaniness and maintainability are subjective to say the
least. I don't expect you to come up with any and I agree that namespaces
do have the potential to help in this area.

> 
>> I agree that namespaces pontentially offer a tool that allows
>> developers to create
>> clearer structure in their code but given that it's only a potential
>> why not take a time
> 
> Sure it's only a potential - there's no released PHP version with
> namespaces. Only way to hammer out practical namespaces issues is to
> start using them, and that doesn't happen until - well, we start using
> them.

it remains nothing more than a pontential even after release. in the same
way that php itself has the potential to enable web developers to be fast and
flexible in their implementations.

this thread is proof enough that practical issues can be raised and
hammered out before release .. granted the chance that you cover every edge
case is unlikely.