Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39847
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.94.56 as permitted sender)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:29:29 +0200
Reply-To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
Message-ID: <161617052.20080812012929@marcus-boerger.de>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>
CC: hannes.magnusson@gmail.com, Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org>, 
	<internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <48A0C415.9090104@zend.com>
References: <909776579.20080803142659@marcus-boerger.de>  <840985F2-A701-4BE4-91F6-F6B39048CF9B@pooteeweet.org>  <48A09FF4.1030101@zend.com> <7f3ed2c30808111411t51553771j389f05c3436bc625@mail.gmail.com> <48A0C415.9090104@zend.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Inconsistencies in 5.3
From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger)

Hello Stanislav,

Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 12:58:29 AM, you wrote:

> Hi!

>> So why the $%#$%& can't we use "package" if the implementation has
>> nothing incommon with namespaces in c++ (your example, not mine)?

> We could use "package" or we could use "hexaflexagon" or we could use 
> "triskaidekaphobia" or any other word. But if we have namespace 
> implementation in PHP, why don't we call it "namespace"? Because it is 
> "inconsistent" with C++? To hell with C++ then, nobody said PHP is C++.

>> Well. I do want that indentation if I ever will be dumb enough to have
>> multiple namespace in the same file..

> Indentation happens when you do () even once. {} implies that everything 
> inside it is on next level of hierarchy and thus should be indented.
> Of course, it's "inconsistent" with Python, so maybe we should drop 
> braces altogether...

>> Its not about consistency for me. Its about that little gut feeling you have.

> Well, of course I can not address little gut feeling with any logical 
> argument. But to hell with logic and reasoning, let the little gut 
> feeling rule.

Sorry but you never ever provided any logical reasoning for the current
way. The reasons that were brought up were:

a) JavaScript will have it in some future

-> works in the same way as C++ has this or Java that

b) We used to have in our first implementation

-> which by the way used curly braces, and the only reason we we dropped it
   was because I was outruled by you and Zeev when we encountered the
   ternariy ambiguty and noone tought it was fixable even though I said it
   was fixable. Sadly I never provided a working patch back then.

c) We said we were adding namespaces at some point, not saying in which way
   we would.

Best regards,
 Marcus