Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39858
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.44.28 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=lefgrnAyRD/IIWnN5G/b3Q8Jkh/1clowSKVVOV5JRMq3jr3/hkIR8+I6zjxLyVNQ1v
         LBtZns5dWPTZDBoxk5EzR7jclCAG48rtdy09kQPU3E5kWU/conWGx4oZLZwmlOe0t6tV
         1MlgYfZlHqAh3tWt1gHLW8rbby9TX8eF2rrfU=
Message-ID: <e666c3890808111804j566024baqac63576276d969b5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:04:48 +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: <48A0DBAE.2010401@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>
	 <e666c3890808111721y25e21e32v2836897793a60822@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48A0DBAE.2010401@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Inconsistencies in 5.3
From: colder@php.net ("Etienne Kneuss")

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> 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.
>
> While introducing a whole collection of new problems - such as that we will
> have now split scope, that you can get in and out many times in the same
> file. As we discussed on the list many times, it's not exactly what we want
> and definitely not the use case it was designed for. I don't see any use for
> it besides promoting bad coding practices.

To me

namespace A {
   code
}

namespace B {
   code
}

code

seems equivalent to

namespace A;
code
namespace B;
code
namespace <none>;
code

Only nicer. And I can hardly how it's going to cause more problems?
But if that's so, fine.

My point is that if we are going to allow multiple namespaces per file
solely on the perspective of permitting packaging, we should also
allow mixing namespaced and non-namespaced code for that same
perspective, and the current syntax is not going to allow that.

I'd really like the {} syntax if multiple namespaces per file is
allowed. If it's not, then it's not much more than syntactic sugar and
I couldn't care less.

> --
> 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