Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:33849 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 5915 invoked by uid 1010); 7 Dec 2007 20:10:21 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 5886 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2007 20:10:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Dec 2007 20:10:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=robert@interjinn.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=robert@interjinn.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain interjinn.com from 66.11.173.122 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: robert@interjinn.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 66.11.173.122 unknown Received: from [66.11.173.122] ([66.11.173.122:59946] helo=blobule.interjinn.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0F/76-00432-7A8A9574 for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:10:17 -0500 Received: by blobule.interjinn.com (Postfix, from userid 2000) id A5C005AD651; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:10:10 -0500 (EST) To: Ken Stanley Cc: Lokrain , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: References: <475713B2.4030802@iamjochem.com> <475719ED.8050306@zend.com> <200712052110.37023.larry@garfieldtech.com> <47576AEF.4030306@omegavortex.net> <5474E017-DF97-4B91-8FE0-7D6831E64F56@bitxtender.com> <4EE0727E-ABBA-490D-B247-8C6E9A9727BA@gmx.net> <345fd5cd0712070815k55eac42fh14d5685039c03113@mail.gmail.com> <345fd5cd0712070816m2c0d4a22hd03f91abff2405ae@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: InterJinn Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:10:10 -0500 Message-ID: <1197058210.14915.98.camel@blobule> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Namespace From: robert@interjinn.com (Robert Cummings) On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 14:57 -0500, Ken Stanley wrote: > In regards to the braces or no braces question, I have a scenario that I > would like to share that could be considered similar in nature. We use a > cluster of databases where I work, and to make things easier on us, we have > a method called setSource() to switch between the clusters in our database > class. This allows us to easily query between the clusters, but since there > are no braces, we sometimes lose track of which cluster we are working on, > and thus bugs are born. I would think that if it were some how possible to > have braces, it would cause less headaches and problems, because we could > then logically group our queries together. The same argument could be used > with namespaces; especially _if_ the multiple namespace-per-file gets added. > Even without that little bit of functionality, it would make maintaining > namespaced code easier to read at first glance. For small apps, it probably > wouldn't be that big of a difference, but for files that span hundreds (and > even thousands) of lines of code, a developer could easily get lost in in > the namespace they are supposed to be in. Am I in a namespace? Which > namespace? Without the code block, and typical indentation, you could easily > overlook the namespace keyword. > > Anyways, I understand that braces are just a bit of icing on the cake -- so > to speak -- but I just wanted to give a probable real-life situation to this > debate. :) Is there any reason why you can't already use braces optionally? I mean, the following code is valid with the current engine: Cheers, Rob. -- ........................................................... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ...........................................................