Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41062
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 213.123.26.179 cause and error)
Message-ID: <48F5B4D9.3030109@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:16:09 +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: <3CF765DF-27AF-44FD-9ECF-BEBFC8A0AFCA@pooteeweet.org> <alpine.DEB.0.98.0810150853100.30375@kossu.ez.no> <48F5A349.4000909@lsces.co.uk> <48F5A4D6.2080904@connectholland.nl>
In-Reply-To: <48F5A4D6.2080904@connectholland.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces and alpha3
From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine)

Ron Rademaker wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote:
>> Derick Rethans wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> At this point I guess we have the choice between:
>>>>
>>>> 1) rip them out
>>>> 2) status quo
>>>> 3) Stas proposal
>>>> 4) Dmitrys proposal
>>>>
>>>> Again I hope that Stas/Dmitry will give us an insight about their 
>>>> proposals,
>>>> though Stas proposal might or might not see any changes.
>>>
>>> Stas wrote up an RFC about the two proposals:
>>> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceref
>>>
>>> Now I finally figured out what the two things are without having to 
>>> real a gazillion pointless posts it makes it easier to formulate my 
>>> point of view.
>>
>> From my own point of view - which may well be flawed - I AM still 
>> seeing 'namespace' as a stepping stone to better code, but in order to 
>> achieve that *I* am thinking that legacy sections get wrapped in a 
>> namespace while other sections are developed. To that end, wrapping 
>> legacy functions and constant does seem essential SHORT TERM, so not 
>> having them would seem to me to make take-up of the concept hamstrung?
> 
> What would be the advantage of wrapping legacy functions in a namespace 
> over wrapping them into a class as static functions?

THAT is probably why I am asking the question? And may well be key to my 
understanding why converting non OO code into OO code in PHP is so 
problematic. When I was coding in CC++ more heavily libraries did not need to 
be objects and the 'namespace' just wrapped the code OR the code was built as 
an object. That is what I understand by a namespace, so perhaps I do not 
understand why leaving out functions and constants is acceptable :(

>> Am I being totally out of line with that idea? Is there a way to 
>> achieve the same result with the current offering?

-- 
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