Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38767
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.44.29 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=F14Ha36Lol33t5CbsXnomb4iZZz7k2sDu6ffDwSW6qwrPWV9NQAJViFsCH4SgxHKXK
         P0ufjo2VHdj+ffaXwMR5BZw2PXuQlZI1lqp4/aMkba4qC2aGDRUrHRxAGc0tm/ucaoeO
         DLeDk1c4soV0IO9l+gbRDY5dlEwr3M6ylAJ54=
Message-ID: <e666c3890807040550g23baac49h67c888775b3e311@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:50:20 +0200
Sender: ekneuss@gmail.com
To: "Lars Strojny" <lars@strojny.net>
Cc: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter?=" <johannes@php.net>, 
	"Derick Rethans" <derick@php.net>, 
	"php-dev List" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <1215174704.8875.32.camel@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1215076043.7021.10.camel@localhost>
	 <alpine.DEB.0.98.0807041013280.6963@kossu.ez.no>
	 <1215160135.8875.14.camel@localhost>
	 <1215162928.32294.5.camel@goldfinger.johannes.nop>
	 <1215163596.8875.22.camel@localhost>
	 <1215172604.32294.34.camel@goldfinger.johannes.nop>
	 <1215174704.8875.32.camel@localhost>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Namespaces for internal classes
From: colder@php.net ("Etienne Kneuss")

Hi,

a big -1 from me on the namings
I really see no point in having:

use Spl::Exception;
throw new Logic;

It makes the code hard to understand with no reason.
IMO a single SPL namespace is enough, and it solves the naming
problems we have with SPL.

Regards


On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Lars Strojny <lars@strojny.net> wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
>
> Am Freitag, den 04.07.2008, 13:56 +0200 schrieb Johannes Schl=FCter:
> [...]
>> Depends ;-)
>> Main point: There's no such thing as "no BC break". So we have to decide
>> whether that BC break (hoping it's the only one) is less a problem than
>> having an inconsistent naming scheme. (... wait - isn't PHP famous for
>> being inconsistent?) The question there is: Where do we want to go
>> tomorrow? Do we want to namespace internal stuff? All of it? Or do we
>> still want to own the global namespace and put internal classes there?
>> As long as that isn't decided it's hard to make a decision about
>> aliasing.
>>
>> So I'd say we need the RFC which defines rules for future stuff
>> (All/"non-core" parts/nothing in namespaces) and then the consequences
>> for existing stuff.
>
> Alright, that's what my RFC was aiming for. Maybe from the wrong
> direction. I wanted to do it exemplary for SPL and go on further for all
> the other extensions we bundle in core. Namespacing everything is the
> only way to reliably avoid collisions as the other option would be to
> prefix anything except core. But what if we move an extension out of
> core, should it be prefixed than?
>
> cu, Lars
>



--=20
Etienne Kneuss
http://www.colder.ch

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from a religious conviction.
-- Pascal