Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41007 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 1077 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2008 18:32:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Oct 2008 18:32:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 213.123.20.128 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 213.123.20.128 c2bthomr10.btconnect.com Received: from [213.123.20.128] ([213.123.20.128:1707] helo=c2bthomr10.btconnect.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 61/BE-25867-995E4F84 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:31:54 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (host81-138-11-136.in-addr.btopenworld.com [81.138.11.136]) by c2bthomr10.btconnect.com with ESMTP id BXF98549; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:31:50 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <48F4E520.5050200@lsces.co.uk> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:29:52 +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 References: <696583.1217.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <037801c92e27$c913f3a0$3ffc1f3e@foxbox> In-Reply-To: <037801c92e27$c913f3a0$3ffc1f3e@foxbox> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr10.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A090203.48F4E597.0097,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=127.0.0.1, so=2007-10-30 19:00:17, dmn=5.7.1/2008-09-02 X-Junkmail-IWF: false Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces and alpha3 From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) Steph Fox wrote: > Hi Tony, > >> I don't think Stas is implying not to test it. > > Which proposal do you think he's implying not to test? And which of the > other three proposals on offer do you think should go out there, bearing > in mind that once the thing's released it can't be changed? I think that is the bottom line! Can anybody come up with a good case for why functions and constant should be 'thrown out with the bath water' ? If there is a majority for ignoring a major section of PHP and restricting new stuff to be only Class based, then we can safely rip functions and constant out and ignore them and go with the current restricted code? I get the feeling however that if namespace is to be usable in the SHORT term, then wrapping functions and constants is essential simply to wrap legacy stuff while it is converted to objects? If there was a clear solution to a complete handling of namespace, then there would not be a problem, but currently there are some big holes that can not be plugged later if the CURRENT code is released? So put it back on the drawing board and try and plug the holes rather than holding up 5.3. While there may have been talking about namespace for years, the problems were never fully appreciated? Now that they have been documented and some of the pros and cons discussed, it is clear that a decision to force the current solution through will cause as many problems later on? -- 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