Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39852
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.44.30 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=lls9VtgYAL6XcrLQhxd6vBGqt0iEzkspecNQO0AlFgUcijBwx/aLgq7MnrqwuI4Xs2
         8BAbWJOXm9MNUMRT81Vih4V4EsyxYH29juJk0SXJmHCK/Flgx8Dbl0h59tt8M0clkyY9
         BcGTxka2/lwQCSC0pRhXNf5knK+j0GEtSzJYo=
Message-ID: <e666c3890808111721y25e21e32v2836897793a60822@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:21:23 +0200
Sender: ekneuss@gmail.com
To: "Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>
Cc: hannes.magnusson@gmail.com, "Lukas Kahwe Smith" <mls@pooteeweet.org>, 
	"Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>, internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <48A0D579.2000000@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>
	 <7f3ed2c30808111411t51553771j389f05c3436bc625@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48A0C415.9090104@zend.com>
	 <e666c3890808111702m5e95e83kc3b15afbf4cef99d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48A0D579.2000000@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Inconsistencies in 5.3
From: colder@php.net ("Etienne Kneuss")

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I fail to see why { } meaning a different level of hierarchy is a
>> problem here, that's exactly what it's supposed to mean: "code in that
>> block is affected by that namespace."
>
> Exactly. The thing is that there can be no code that is not affected (at
> least not in this file) for namespaces - and {} implies there could be.

but if the {} syntax is introduced, it will be made to affect only the
code inside it, right? If so, I fail to see your point, since the new
syntax will solve that problem.

>
>> We don't expect if's to work until the next if(), do we? Even though
>> ifs are not "entities like classes or functions".
>
> Exactly. That's why it makes sense to have if() with braces - because if
> works not until the end of file, but only with the block attached to it, and
> after this block ends, it's like there was no if. But namespace doesn't work
> this way.

Same as before: but they would work this way with the {} syntax

> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
> stas@zend.com   http://www.zend.com/
> (408)253-8829   MSN: stas@zend.com
>
>



-- 
Etienne Kneuss
http://www.colder.ch

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from a religious conviction.
-- Pascal