Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41123
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.44.29 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references;
        b=j3WFwfftrWgAgAw8YZptJTU/0Jj1n/lY630kSXpWqmM0tKD7WUqwGaXOh1XCTYq7q7
         ZiYpfYGPg0YfY+nHvs5NihYdUFesywv9cIUSUMkV3ee5pkQailNEoOoBErD96rBIyS+G
         XZ6BwziCdOUdlBwkm/SyVwUQPcliVRu0dCoPQ=
Message-ID: <261daaa10810160734l471643dag152563ebd28c9c86@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:34:25 +0300
To: "Justin Carlson" <justin.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: "PHP internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <48F74FF8.7080305@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_63841_26743436.1224167665630"
References: <48F6B3C5.9030102@chiaraquartet.net>
	 <7f3ed2c30810152312h5391b25dke2695362c8d28d3b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48F6E50E.4010107@lsces.co.uk>
	 <7f3ed2c30810160009i70392f39wabd879295dad842b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <003f01c92f8f$bcb706b0$3ffc1f3e@foxbox> <48F74FF8.7080305@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces sanity: addition to RFC explaining why Stas's proposal doesn't work
From: kenashkov@gmail.com ("Vesselin Kenashkov")

------=_Part_63841_26743436.1224167665630
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

The thread where your vote has to go is:
[PHP-DEV] my last attempt at sanity with namespaces
started also by Gregory.

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Justin Carlson <justin.carlson@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> I vote for option 3.
>
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceissues
>
> Seems like the best fit all around.
>
>
>
>
>
> Steph Fox wrote:
>
>> Hannes, Lester...
>>
>>  Can we please start small and then incrementally add more features?
>>>>> Lets start with classes only in namespaces in 5.3.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem with that statement is that if it is used to ignore the
>>>> other
>>>> problems, then at some point it may be necessary to re-write all the new
>>>> namespace code simply to allow additional features to be added!
>>>>
>>>
>>> tough luck. If it needs total rewrite in the future then it needs
>>> total rewrite now to support the additional features anyway.
>>>
>>
>> That was my argument for the entire first half of this week. If either of
>> you had looked at Greg's latest idea, you'd know that it removes that
>> problem entirely.
>>
>> Please go and look at his proposals at
>> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceissues, and then vote?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - Steph
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


-- 
Vesselin Kenashkov
developer at
www.webstudiobulgaria.com

------=_Part_63841_26743436.1224167665630--