Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36526
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.162 as permitted sender)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:12:18 -0700
Message-ID: <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE016DA77A@us-ex1.zend.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Namespace syntax decision
Thread-Index: AciLn1PGElIQpBqIRliEJg/aF0UElADaEnnw
References: <1789567073.20080321223647@marcus-boerger.de> <47E43032.20507@chiaraquartet.net>
To: "Gregory Beaver" <greg@chiaraquartet.net>,
	"Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>
Cc: <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Namespace syntax decision
From: andi@zend.com ("Andi Gutmans")

In general I'd prefer one namespace per-file, at least as a best
practice and common advertised use. For this case it doesn't really
matter too much whether it's with or without brackets. My preference is
without because then you just stick it at the top and don't have an
extra level of indentation which you'd typically have with brackets.

For the not recommended case where you want to combine multiple files
with a tool I still prefer without brackets. The brackets again add
indentation and in addition, it's not really clear whether you can put
code in between namespaces definitions (between closing "}" and
"namespaces" keyword). You shouldn't be able to and without brackets
that becomes much more clear because current namespace is relevant until
the next namespace declaration; thus never allowing a "gap".

I think it's important for people to consider the former reasons as I
think without {} will lead be more intuitive and will lead to less
indentation.

I definitely prefer "namespace" as a keyword.

My 2 cents.
Andi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Beaver [mailto:greg@chiaraquartet.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 3:01 PM
> To: Marcus Boerger
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Namespace syntax decision
>=20
> Marcus Boerger 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 { }
>=20
> This is acceptable if nothing can exist outside namespace foo {}
except
> declare and other namespace declarations.
>=20
> >
> > 2) package foo;
> >
> > I favor 1) if we allow namespace nesting and 2) if not. The current
> way of
> > nesting is very confusing:
> > namespace foo; namespace bar;
>=20
> I prefer this syntax because it discourages multiple namespaces, but
> still allows them (nesting is an inaccurate term in this case, I
> strongly encourage not using it)
>=20
> Greg
>=20
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php