Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36315
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.200.172 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=s0k539D6Kjovmz5kJEzm6UPGGKEEfkASF+vPlKdNGmCtkStLcdXuj8rRz3FWbeqYMliPyUwl2kR8POQdA+P+urLxdIy5KtOWE5UxHPkhnttcP0+cAmsZL/Rq8tM37sQ5GiL022SYoZ/jrVvwItN6D0xgluZ6OWjuInERUsgrIu0=
Message-ID: <7f3ed2c30803220400q600e7f9ei257ddd07fffba463@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:00:42 +0100
To: "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <1789567073.20080321223647@marcus-boerger.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1789567073.20080321223647@marcus-boerger.de>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Namespace syntax decision
From: hannes.magnusson@gmail.com ("Hannes Magnusson")

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote:
> Hello Internals,
>
>   we all were asked to stop discussing syntax of namespaces as we were told
>  that we would decide after the namespace functionality was fully implemented.
>  Now I think that the functionallity is pretty much settled we should
>  revisit the syntax. We all have been very patient so far. Anyway here goes
>  my take on it:
>
>  PHP is very close to Java and C++ in terms of Syntax. And many of our users
>  are familiar with one or even both of them. Also we have a tendency to
>  especially take syntax from those two or be in line with those two
>  languages. That said I see two ways:
>
>  1) namespace foo { }

Since multiple namespaces are allowed in the same file we have no
choice but to use this syntax.
Otherwise, I would have gone for package foo;

-Hannes