Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40987 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 66695 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2008 13:16:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Oct 2008 13:16:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=scott@macvicar.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=scott@macvicar.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain macvicar.net from 193.227.246.108 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: scott@macvicar.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 193.227.246.108 ip246-108-v193.static.x-ip.net Received: from [193.227.246.108] ([193.227.246.108:59470] helo=lovelace.midden.org.uk) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 71/10-25867-1AB94F84 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:16:18 -0400 Received: from office.vbulletin.com ([217.155.246.60] helo=[10.0.0.116]) by lovelace.midden.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kpjku-0003C1-J4; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:16:14 +0100 Message-ID: <48F49B92.5040706@macvicar.net> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:16:02 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lukas Kahwe Smith CC: PHP Development References: <3CF765DF-27AF-44FD-9ECF-BEBFC8A0AFCA@pooteeweet.org> In-Reply-To: <3CF765DF-27AF-44FD-9ECF-BEBFC8A0AFCA@pooteeweet.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.3 X-Spam_Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "lovelace.midden.org.uk", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > Hi All, > > There was an offline exchange, which generated a lot of good ideas, but > that failed to find agreement for one final proposal among the > participants. I had hoped that the results would have been mailed to > this list yesterday. Since I am going on yet another frisbee trip in > about an hour, I am putting on the thumb screws with this post. Stas > might update his proposal and Dmitry has a proposal that makes some more > modifications to be able to handle functions/constants in namespaces > without ambiguities. I will leave it to them to send their proposals to > the list. > > At this point I guess we have the choice between: > > 1) rip them out [...] Content analysis details: (-4.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces and alpha3 From: scott@macvicar.net (Scott MacVicar) Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > Hi All, > > There was an offline exchange, which generated a lot of good ideas, but > that failed to find agreement for one final proposal among the > participants. I had hoped that the results would have been mailed to > this list yesterday. Since I am going on yet another frisbee trip in > about an hour, I am putting on the thumb screws with this post. Stas > might update his proposal and Dmitry has a proposal that makes some more > modifications to be able to handle functions/constants in namespaces > without ambiguities. I will leave it to them to send their proposals to > the list. > > At this point I guess we have the choice between: > > 1) rip them out +1 I'd much rather see namespaces removed for 5.3 and a more thought out implementation for a future release. To be honest prefixing your classes isn't overly hard, so its not something most people will miss from 5.3. This discussion has already held up 5.3 enough for now and I'd rather not see BC badly broken when we "fix" some things in the future. Once we ship an implementation of Namespaces we're more or less stuck with it. Scott