Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:33851 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 13420 invoked by uid 1010); 7 Dec 2007 20:38:54 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 13404 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2007 20:38:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Dec 2007 20:38:54 -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] ([66.11.173.122:41529] helo=blobule.interjinn.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 22/A7-00432-D5FA9574 for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:38:53 -0500 Received: by blobule.interjinn.com (Postfix, from userid 2000) id 04B7D5AD652; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:38:50 -0500 (EST) To: Ken Stanley Cc: Lokrain , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: References: <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> <1197058210.14915.98.camel@blobule> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: InterJinn Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:38:50 -0500 Message-ID: <1197059930.14915.101.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 15:21 -0500, Ken Stanley wrote: > I understand what you mean, but I was just trying to put a real-world face > on a so-far theoretical problem. But that does raise an interesting point; > we can already use braces anywhere and everywhere, and while we could easily > wrap namespaces in anonymous braces like you describe, why not just go the > extra mile and allow attaching them directly to the namespace, i.e.: > > > namespace XYZ { > // Do stuff > } > > // Looks a little better than > > { > namespace XYZ; > > // Do stuff > > } > > ?> > > Of course, this is just my opinion, and given your suggestion, at least > there is an acceptable solution already. Thank you. :) I don't see how the latter isn't almost entirely possible: Cheers, Rob. -- ........................................................... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ...........................................................