Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38634
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 72.14.220.158 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:mime-version
         :content-type;
        b=h+Ir69yp8XID4lNGjd22rcI5cdXfQnVqdTKTG2fwn0r65K7lW6xOVn0sEflvLi11Ij
         s3miW70Q5KMg5drNc0nUAAgiuzgQCqnSj+fnne3bKAcVPP2tHN26k8GzO1jPZLYO8yZQ
         iniXASs37FVEPx3uqjZXF0Hc93+C/K6heJPbg=
Message-ID: <10845a340806260209g5d22c986tbd14b4234d079590@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:09:39 +0100
Reply-To: RQuadling@GoogleMail.com
To: "Derick Rethans" <derick@php.net>
Cc: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, 
	"internals Mailing List" <internals@lists.php.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_4803_3752462.1214471379750"
Subject: How bad would it be to say/enforce that namespacing can only apply to classes and not normal functions?
From: rquadling@googlemail.com ("Richard Quadling")

------=_Part_4803_3752462.1214471379750
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

2008/6/26 Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>:

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> > Derick Rethans wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
> > >
> > > > it won't be a serious 'wtf', as on the top of the file, there
> > > > would be some kind of use MySuperLibrary::DateTime;
> > >
> > > I know, but 400 lines down in the code you can't really see that.
> > > This addition might fix the immediate issue - but it doesn't make
> > > life easier for the developers that have to maintain the code. Even
> > > less if they're not aware that stuff is namespaced.
> >
> > If we don't allow it to work this way, then I really don't see the
> > point in namespaces at all, which I assume is the point you are trying
> > to make.
>
> Actually, the point that I was trying to make is that we instead of
> encouraging this confusion, we should put somewhere in our userland
> nameing guidelines that you still would need to provide a prefix to your
> (aliased) classnames in order to prevent confusion. But that then
> seriously means I see no real good reason still why people want
> namespaces with confusing resolving rules (concerning static methods
> like Greg points out).
>
> regards,
> Derick
>
> --
> Derick Rethans
> http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
How bad would it be to say that namespacing can only apply to classes and
not normal functions?

So.

class::static();
namespace::class::static();
namespace::namespace::class::static();

they always work.


namespace::function() would fail as namespace would be seen as class.

If a class and a namespace share the same name ...

namespace::function() vs class:static()... how is anyone, let alone PHP,
going to know. It can't. If both forms relate to a valid entity, then it is
always a guess as to which is intended.

You could make namespace:: have a higher precedence than class:: (or the
other way around). But that feels like a fudge rather than a fix.


So, maybe, in the short tem, namespacing only applies to classes.

It was my understanding that one of the primary reasons for introducing
namespacing was to protect against userland_class vs builtin_class
collision.

Regards,

Richard Quadling.

-- 
-----
Richard Quadling
Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731
"Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"

------=_Part_4803_3752462.1214471379750--