Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41081
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.163 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <48F618CC.8090904@zend.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:22:36 -0700
Organization: Zend Technologies
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
CC: Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org>, 
 PHP Development <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <3CF765DF-27AF-44FD-9ECF-BEBFC8A0AFCA@pooteeweet.org> <alpine.DEB.0.98.0810150853100.30375@kossu.ez.no>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.0.98.0810150853100.30375@kossu.ez.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces and alpha3
From: stas@zend.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> It seems that we're not quite 100% how we want to do things. Reading the 
> "Namespaces with functions/constants" part of Stas' RFC makes me 
> cringe... just changing the behavior of -> and :: to just make things 
> work is a cludge, and a bad one at that. The other part, "Namespaces 

I think that's actually what we should have done from the start. All OO 
languages but C++ have same operator for both static and dynamic OO 
access, and C++ is not exactly clarity example anyway. But we have the 
baggage of being used to C++ way, so...

> However, while reading code it makes it absolutely clear whether you're 
> using an internal class or not.

it is always absolutely clear - if you didn't say :: you are not.

> As we're getting really close to 5.3, I would suggest to remove 
> namespaces from this release as we're simply not done with even agreeing 
> on how things should work. PHP 5.3 has many other cool things, and 

You realize this means PHP will never have namespaces, right?

> Unicode). We've done with namespaces for a loooong time, and they've 
> never really been *required*. Many people won't be able to use it any 

For you, maybe, but for other people out there they are.

> If we *absolutely *have* to* have namespaces, then we should go with the 
> "Namespaces without functions/constants" proposal, with some tweaks. 

Which tweaks?
-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com   http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829   MSN: stas@zend.com