Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40592
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain iamjochem.com from 194.109.193.121 cause and error)
Message-ID: <48D60055.3040105@iamjochem.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:05:41 +0200
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Steph Fox <steph@php.net>
CC: RQuadling@GoogleMail.com, 
 PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <48D47532.8080102@chiaraquartet.net> <e666c3890809200924t28f1c585kad77729dd608c5ad@mail.gmail.com> <10845a340809201643q59e27211i471e09241f7253b1@mail.gmail.com> <003301c91b7c$b2552930$3ffc1f3e@foxbox> <48D59477.90801@iamjochem.com> <006e01c91b82$17b81c10$3ffc1f3e@foxbox>
In-Reply-To: <006e01c91b82$17b81c10$3ffc1f3e@foxbox>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] solving the namespace conflict issues between function/static
 method class constant/ns constant
From: jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas)

Steph Fox schreef:
> Hi Jochem,
> 
>> It seems to hav escaped everyone that Greg's latest proposal doesn't 
>> change
>> the namespace seperator token, instead it comes with a new concept of 
>> namespace
>> member [token].
> 
> No, that didn't escape me at all. 

oh, good!

> I was responding to the OP.
> 
> To be clear, I have worked with Greg. The experience left me with large 
> amounts of respect for his creativity and analytical abilities. They 
> exceed mine by a number of quadzillions.

I've been conversing with him over the last couple of weeks regarding namespaces
off-list and have every reason to second that thought.

> 
> That doesn't mean Greg's always in the right, but it does mean he's 
> always worth hearing. I know for sure I'm not the only person on this 
> list who sees him that way, and most of the others have far more 
> influence than I do.

which makes it all the more sad that the only person taking a real interest
in his [latest namespace] proposal is the one person who's completely
adamant that there is nothing in the current namespace implementation that
needs addressing (all issues come down to 'your using it wrong')

> Next time, perhaps you and I should both let sleeping dogs lie ;)

I don't get the use of that idiom in this context. I think the 'namespace' dog
has been up and about for a while already, granted some would like to see it
put down permanently :-)

> 
> - Steph