Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38636
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 72.14.220.156 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:in-reply-to
         :mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=J6xRQ68cagfXC6Rsl7sKOPl7RXZCT+ICWONjLWMDEXo5uWj41rT2zYc1NV7xUL/mrf
         cLpwEZAPH1z22RUcrIlzozWqtSy36U8gE1kZleq2bhVN0rNbt4e3qD1McOgfe5TPGJRA
         r10wj18Qt9lxT6ggFLKmJNdvXlRIOOdSY6yWo=
Message-ID: <10845a340806260341y70a3ca12v5c339e697863ca01@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:41:27 +0100
Reply-To: RQuadling@GoogleMail.com
To: "Hartmut Holzgraefe" <hartmut@mysql.com>
Cc: "Derick Rethans" <derick@php.net>, "Rasmus Lerdorf" <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, 
	"internals Mailing List" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <48635E85.3040401@mysql.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_5376_23969257.1214476887237"
References: <10845a340806260209g5d22c986tbd14b4234d079590@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48635E85.3040401@mysql.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 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_5376_23969257.1214476887237
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

2008/6/26 Hartmut Holzgraefe <hartmut@mysql.com>:

> Richard Quadling wrote:
>
>  How bad would it be to say that namespacing can only apply to classes and
>> not normal functions?
>>
>
> i don't see namespacing as an OO only feature, IMHO it is a perfectly
> valid and useful thing for pure procedural code, too
>
> not having namespacing for procedural functions would leave
> the old ugly concept of bundling functions as static methods within
> dummy wrapper classes as only option for procedural name space
> emulation ... which AFAIR was one of the things we wanted to get
> rid of way back when the whole namespace idea first materialized?
>
>
Ok. I see your point and the idea of grouping related functionality into a
dummy class full of statics does feel wrong when there is no other benefit,
but from a userland code's perspective

namespace::function()

looks JUST like

ugly_bundled_class::static()


Internally, sure, they are completely different, but from a users
perspective, they are the same thing. Same amount of typing. Same syntax.
Nothing to differentiate.

So the issue to namespace::function() vs class::static() remains.

As I see it either precedence is the answer (user namespaces first, internal
namespaces next and global namespace being last) or a different symbol for
namespace.

Maybe namespace:::function() vs class::static().

Would that be enough?


Richard.

-- 
-----
Richard Quadling
Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731
"Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"

------=_Part_5376_23969257.1214476887237--