Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40835
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 213.123.20.121 cause and error)
Message-ID: <48E46203.9040809@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 06:54:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080829 SeaMonkey/1.1.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <48D7F5EF.3090202@zend.com> <48E42CD4.8010000@gmail.com> <48E42F68.9060000@php.net>
In-Reply-To: <48E42F68.9060000@php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: namespace issues
From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine)

Brian Moon wrote:
>>> 3. Functions will not be allowed inside namespaces. We arrived to
>>> conclusion that they are much more trouble than they're worth, and
>>> summarily we would be better off without them. Most of the
>>> functionality could be easily achieved using static class methods, and
>>> the rest may be emulated with variable function names, etc.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>> Figuring that you arrived at the same conclusion nearly three years ago
>> regarding my namespace patch, and I also agreed that only classes should
>> be allowed inside namespaces
>> (http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=113320797607651&w=2), I am +1 for
>> this proposal.
> 
> <rant>
> And the congregation wept.  Man, how much more bastard ass step child do 
> functions have to become?  Its not bad enough that the OOP stuff is 
> littered with every little overly complicated bell and whistle.  Now 
> functions are to be left behind with this feature?  Geez people.  Get 
> over your OOP arrogance.
> </rant>

I think THIS probably sums up the split between developers over namespace?
If a project is built only as classes WHY do we need namespace? If namespace 
is never going to encapsulate the very elements that it NEEDS to group when 
NOT using classes then is there any point ADDING namespace?

Has the target for namespace ever been defined and if so are the current 
exceptions to that target now acceptable?

At the present time I do not see that what has been IMPLEMENTED so far for 
namespace can be used as a basis that can be expanded in the future to address 
the remaining inconsistencies? If these inconsistencies are simply going to be 
ignored by banning fundamental things like functions perhaps THAT is what 
needs to be voted on? Simply saying - lets get what we have out - and ignoring 
the concerns of a section of the developer community does seem to be 'arrogant'?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php