Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40672
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 64.99.136.163 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <002701c91e9c$31ff34b0$3ffc1f3e@foxbox>
To: "Greg Beaver" <greg@chiaraquartet.net>,
	"Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>
Cc: "'PHP Internals'" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <48D7F5EF.3090202@zend.com> <48DAC639.2000406@chiaraquartet.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:20:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: namespace issues
From: steph@php.net ("Steph Fox")

> Before anyone gets all hyper, my point is *not* to introduce :>, but to
> explain that it is in fact technically feasible to extend the definition
> of namespaces later to add support for non-class elements and it would
> work just fine.
>
> It is, however, not going to be possible to do this post-5.3 without the
> change above.

Damn Greg, I love the way your head works :)

Thank you for being the only person to date to think "ok so we start low and 
then expand" and have some clue as to what "expand" might mean, and the 
restrictions it might put on whatever is done now.

The main concern I have with namespace support is that it shouts "leave it 
'til 6.0" at me because it's really not there yet, even at conceptual level. 
I'm not the only one thinking this way. To quote jvlad (the person with no 
name) in an off-list exchange, "language syntax should be developed after 
the philosophy, not before, and what people still did not agree of is the 
philosophy of the namespaces."

I seriously think he's right.

Maybe we should all just step back at this point and consider the phrase 
"third time lucky"?

- Steph