Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40601
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pooteeweet.org from 88.198.8.16 cause and error)
Cc: Gregory Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net>,
 internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <35BF242A-A479-4C8D-9137-0ED1B68109FE@pooteeweet.org>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
In-Reply-To: <48D7ADAE.5030500@zend.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:45:33 +0200
References: <48D47532.8080102@chiaraquartet.net> <e666c3890809200924t28f1c585kad77729dd608c5ad@mail.gmail.com> <10845a340809201643q59e27211i471e09241f7253b1@mail.gmail.com> <200809202000.38870.larry@garfieldtech.com> <E5.0A.65213.536E5D84@pb1.pair.com> <48D66160.40306@chiaraquartet.net> <48D79672.4060208@zend.com> <48D7A51C.9030805@chiaraquartet.net> <48D7ADAE.5030500@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] solving the namespace conflict issues between function/staticmethod class constant/ns constant
From: mls@pooteeweet.org (Lukas Kahwe Smith)


On 22.09.2008, at 16:37, Dmitry Stogov wrote:

>> Returning to the original debate, if you really believe this  
>> conflict is
>> not an issue, then why was the first user note published last  
>> December a
>> note about this conflict?
>>
>> http://us3.php.net/manual/en/language.namespaces.php#80035
>
> I could add nothing. The problem exists, but proposed solution make
> language even worse. Having A::B->foo() and ->foo() or ::foo() and
> A::B->C::foo() is much more inconsistent from my point of view.
> It would be better to change static class separator from :: to ->, but
> it's a BC break


Again, not speaking as an RM, I personally feel we really do have to  
solve this ambiguity problem. I do not agree that this only affects  
"namespace abusers".

That being said we have to stay realistic. What Greg proposes is  
realistic imho. Its essentially reusing an existing OO syntax. The  
same is what we have today with the double colon. While I agree that  
it would not be my natural choice, it seems it solves our real problem  
of the frequently mentioned ambiguity problem. So from that perspetive  
its a step forward from the current syntax.

I know we are getting dangerously close (or are we already back in  
it?) to the namespace separator discussion. I remember back then a lot  
of people were saying lets get the implementation done first and then  
worry about the syntax. I guess we are more or less at this point now.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
mls@pooteeweet.org