Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41129 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 61830 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2008 15:17:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Oct 2008 15:17:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=stas@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=stas@zend.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: stas@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.25.124.163 il-gw1.zend.com Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 Received: from [212.25.124.163] ([212.25.124.163:64795] helo=il-gw1.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 10/62-49179-9FA57F84 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:17:14 -0400 Received: from us-ex1.zend.com ([192.168.16.5]) by il-gw1.zend.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:17:33 +0200 Received: from [192.168.27.10] ([192.168.27.10]) by us-ex1.zend.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:17:09 -0700 Message-ID: <48F75AF4.6070300@zend.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:17:08 -0700 Organization: Zend Technologies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregory Beaver CC: internals Mailing List References: <48F6B3C5.9030102@chiaraquartet.net> In-Reply-To: <48F6B3C5.9030102@chiaraquartet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2008 15:17:09.0080 (UTC) FILETIME=[41BBBD80:01C92FA2] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces sanity: addition to RFC explaining why Stas's proposal doesn't work From: stas@zend.com (Stanislav Malyshev) Hi! Gregory Beaver wrote: > Hi again, > > I was asked to explain why I hadn't included ClassName->Method(); in the > list of ideas that solve the ambiguity problem. I added a brief section > to the RFC that does so: > > http://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceissues#why_stas_s_proposed_solution_doesn_t_work What you wrote is incorrect - it does not require changing syntax everywhere, but only in very rare cases where actual ambiguity exists. Actual ambiguity would exist only when different people without any communication between them or common design plan work on one namespace (which should never happen, but we know our users, so we give them some help even if they don't follow good practices). There's absolutely no need to rewrite any existing code. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com