Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39029
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain chiaraquartet.net from 208.83.222.18 cause and error)
Message-ID: <487EB028.5090201@chiaraquartet.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:36:24 -0400
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: php-dev <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: questions about namespaces, functions vs. closures
From: greg@chiaraquartet.net (Greg Beaver)

Hi,

Some questions about namespaces now that PHP 5.3 continues to evolve

1) Do we need functions in namespaces now that we have closures?

One of the main reasons I wanted functions in namespaces was to 
implement callbacks.  Now that we have closures in PHP 5.3, for me there 
is no longer any good reason to have functions in namespaces other than 
porting legacy code.

Because the only remaining serious naming conflict is between namespaced 
functions and static class methods, I wonder how many people would find 
closures an acceptable substitute for allowing functions in namespaces?  
Also, see #3 as a way to solve the question of porting old code.

My assumption is that namespaces are best as a library helper for 
re-usable classes.

2) Do we really need namespaced constants?

These can conflict with class constants and there is no way to resolve 
the difference external to that namespace.

3) Now that it has been pointed out that use can't be used in brackets, 
could we consider moving namespace syntax to a syntax proposal Dmitry 
made a while ago:

<?php
namespace Foo {
}
namespace Bar {
// this shows how to port legacy code - you simply have to explicitly 
use old functions.
use ::blah();
}
namespace {
function blah(){}
}
?>

The last example would be for porting legacy un-namespaced code (for 
instance, utility functions) or global application code that uses the 
previous stuff.

If possible, could answers to these questions be limited to +1/-1?  I 
would like to get a sense of how controversial these ideas are rather 
than to just debate them.  If you absolutely must reply with other 
ideas, then please start a new thread.

Thanks,
Greg