Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39839
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.134.184 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=brhUk1gG3V0TA8jsTmA8Grp33WwJPj7gH4YGjxAwBuQwhG3I+ry9JRYyBb/5Vf3UjI
         LqohEWyHltb5TY2D4Asd00eqLfwqmREuyqOurdxhGHXuH9o0G1PBspy9ThRLm1UjyqaV
         Fet+I1rauVpj04J0egIVLbOStsHpL1QGjdZwo=
Message-ID: <7f3ed2c30808111411t51553771j389f05c3436bc625@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:11:47 +0200
To: "Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>
Cc: "Lukas Kahwe Smith" <mls@pooteeweet.org>, "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>, 
	internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <48A09FF4.1030101@zend.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <909776579.20080803142659@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <840985F2-A701-4BE4-91F6-F6B39048CF9B@pooteeweet.org>
	 <48A09FF4.1030101@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Inconsistencies in 5.3
From: hannes.magnusson@gmail.com

On 11/08/2008, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Ideally someone would summarize the discussion (or maybe two people, one
>> from each "camp") and then we can have a vote. Make it an RFC or
>
> OK, here it goes again:
>
> When we adopt some syntax, especially syntax matching some other
> language, we do not just introduce an otherwise meaningless sequence of
> symbols to be learned by users. We introduce concepts, and we create
> associative links with other languages. So, if we introduced the syntax
> for namespaces that is used by C++ - i.e. braces, we would imply that it
> has all the properties that C++ one has and that we encourage the usage
> patterns that C++ users adopt. Namely, that namespaces can be nested,
> that they are hierarchical, that namespaces can be used in any place in
> the file, just for one function/class or even variable without any
> influence on the surroundings, that using multiple namespaces in the
> same file, along with global space, is completely OK.

So why the $%#$%& can't we use "package" if the implementation has
nothing incommon with namespaces in c++ (your example, not mine)?


> Added to that, braced namespaces would imply additional (and
> unnecessary) level of hierarchy and indentation for most editors and
> code formatters.
> [snip]
> With all that, there's not one thing that syntax with {} enables us to
> do and that is not possible to do right now (and that we want to do :).

Well. I do want that indentation if I ever will be dumb enough to have
multiple namespace in the same file..

There is only one thing I could care less about than consistency, and
that is Windows.
Its not about consistency for me. Its about that little gut feeling you have.
To me it looks, and feels, much more like a namespace when you wrap it
in a namespace block. To me its more natural syntax.


-Hannes