Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41099
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <97.D1.10880.C4666F84@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:52:04 +0100
Reply-To: nrixham@gmail.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <48F653FF.5010106@chiaraquartet.net> <2dedb8a0810151415r74681e7ei5c293414660bc0c7@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2dedb8a0810151415r74681e7ei5c293414660bc0c7@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] my last attempt at sanity with namespaces
From: nrixham@gmail.com (Nathan Rixham)

Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Like Guilherme wrote, I've spend alot of my day reading the emails and
> trying to understand the namespace issues and after reading your
> proposal I understand the issues you're bringing up. So heres my
> votes:
> 
> Conflict between namespaced functions and static class methods:
> I don't think it makes much sense to be able to make a class inside a
> namespace with the same name as another namespace, so my +1 here goes
> to option #4 (disallow mixing namespaces and classes with the same
> name).
> 
> Resolving access to internal classes:
> I'm a +1 for changing the resolution order.
> 
> Cheers,
> Kalle Sommer Nielsen

out of the four options I'm:
+1 to (disallow mixing namespaces and classes with the same name)
+5 to changing the :: namespace operator personally I like period(.)

IMO
::: is visually and legibly dire

you can't namespace::class:::static_method() [or change the 
class::static() operator at all] as that would mean every reference to a 
static method in a class since eternity was using the wrong operator

"use namespace"/"use class" syntax seems to bloat but certainly isn't 
disambiguous

or use something completely mad like uri scheme's for namespaces!
ns://one/step/two()
ns://one/step::two()
[the last comment should probably be disregarded]