Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35664
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 213.75.38.113 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <47BC923D.7090708@php.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:49:01 +0100
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
CC: Jochem Maas <jochem@iamjochem.com>, 
 internals Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <001c01c87264$3c01b4e0$b4051ea0$@de> <1203453089.24580.12.camel@localhost> <1615703844.20080219214224@marcus-boerger.de> <47BB41F1.40607@iamjochem.com> <1016146449.20080220210127@marcus-boerger.de>
In-Reply-To: <1016146449.20080220210127@marcus-boerger.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Traits for PHP
From: tularis@php.net ("M. Sokolewicz")

Marcus, Jochem,

Although I agree with the general idea, I feel strongly against 
possesses, mainly because for a non-native english speaker it's a pita 
to write and will (and I'm sure of this) *very* often be misspelled 
(leading to general annoyances while debugging). I can't give any better 
fitting keywords for it though, but possesses is definitly not the best 
choice imo.

- Tul

Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Jochem,
> 
>   good arguments. And good ideas. I'd favor 'posesses' then.
> 
> marcus
> 
> Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 9:54:09 PM, you wrote:
> 
>> firstly, I'd like to reiterate the general sentiment
>> that Stefans RFC is blinding! (that's a good thing in this context ;-)
> 
>> Marcus Boerger schreef:
>>> Hello Lars,
>>>
>>>   we could even go for include here if we wanted to avoid use as much as
>>> adding a new keyword. Personally I don't mind using keywords for different
>>> stuff as long as it cannot conflict. That is in this case true for both
>>> include and use.
> 
>> how about 'possesses' or 'exhibits' - both these words are closer to the
>> natural language usage of 'trait' with regard to a subject.
> 
>> John exhibits a **** trait
>> Jack possesses a **** trait
> 
>> a person coming accross 'use' or 'include' in the context of
>> trait attribution may either make assumptions or become confused as to
>> possible changes/additions to the use and/or include functionality, a
>> new keyword that aptly describes the intention will more likely force
>> users to actually find out what it means.
> 
>> an another alternative might be 'applies' - which doesn't fit the
>> natural language usage of 'trait' but does succintly describe what is happening.
> 
>> just a thought.
> 
>>> marcus
>>>
>>> Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 9:31:29 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Stefan,
>>>> Am Montag, den 18.02.2008, 20:27 +0100 schrieb php@stefan-marr.de:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>  class ezcReflectionMethod extends ReflectionMethod {
>>>>>    use ezcReflectionReturnInfo;
>>>>>    /* ... */
>>>>>  }
>>>> I'm not sure if the use-keyword is a good idea as namespaces are already
>>>> "used". If we use "use" for traits, maybe going back to "import" for
>>>> namespaces would be the way to go.
>>>> cu, Lars
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>  Marcus
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
>  Marcus