Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40602
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.163 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <48D7C2AE.6000707@zend.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:07:10 +0400
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org>
CC: Gregory Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net>, internals@lists.php.net
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> <35BF242A-A479-4C8D-9137-0ED1B68109FE@pooteeweet.org>
In-Reply-To: <35BF242A-A479-4C8D-9137-0ED1B68109FE@pooteeweet.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] solving the namespace conflict issues between function/staticmethod
 class constant/ns constant
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)



Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> 
> 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.

Yes. Changing :: into any other separator solves the functions/static
methods and constants ambiguity, but it also breaks intuitive syntax.

Thanks. Dmitry.

> 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
> 
> 
>