Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36592
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 83.243.58.163 as permitted sender)
To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <1789567073.20080321223647@marcus-boerger.de>
References: <1789567073.20080321223647@marcus-boerger.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:42:09 +0100
Message-ID: <1206574929.11056.38.camel@goldfinger>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [RFC] Namespace syntax decision
From: johannes@php.net (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=)

Hi,

On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 22:36 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>   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:

Allowing multiple namespaces per file using the "namespace foo;" syntax
feels really bad for me. Therefore I basically agree with Marcus on the
two options.

> 1) namespace foo { }
> 
> 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;

About the options I don't have strong opinions but I see that people
want multiple namespaces per file. We aren't like other languages which
enforce one class per file and I don't think we should enforce one
namespace per file. Therefore I prefer 1).

johannes