Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36377
Return-Path: <helly@php.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 79283 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2008 13:52:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 23 Mar 2008 13:52:10 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=helly@php.net; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=helly@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.94.56 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: helly@php.net
X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.214.94.56 aixcept.net Linux 2.6
Received: from [85.214.94.56] ([85.214.94.56:52555] helo=h1149922.serverkompetenz.net)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 5C/AB-10593-A8066E74 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:52:10 -0500
Received: from MBOERGER-ZRH.corp.google.com (72-216.1-85.cust.bluewin.ch [85.1.216.72])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by h1149922.serverkompetenz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE7111DB3F;
	Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:52:07 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:49:06 +0100
Reply-To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <1117363424.20080323144906@marcus-boerger.de>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>
CC: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <47E5B7A2.6020803@zend.com>
References: <1789567073.20080321223647@marcus-boerger.de> <7f3ed2c30803220400q600e7f9ei257ddd07fffba463@mail.gmail.com> <47E5B7A2.6020803@zend.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Namespace syntax decision
From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger)

Hello Stanislav,

Sunday, March 23, 2008, 2:51:30 AM, you wrote:

>> Since multiple namespaces are allowed in the same file we have no
>> choice but to use this syntax.

> Yes we have choice. Leave it as it is and stop raising this topic every 
> two weeks.

Well the history simply is that many people did not agree. And you simply
cannot go head-trough-wall here. And committing and telling us down and
thinking you are someone special is not going to work. Quite some people
are unhappy with the current state, so either convince them with technical
arguments or change the current state.

Best regards,
 Marcus