Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41151 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 16625 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2008 17:29:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Oct 2008 17:29:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 213.123.20.119 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 213.123.20.119 c2bthomr01.btconnect.com Received: from [213.123.20.119] ([213.123.20.119:7595] helo=c2bthomr01.btconnect.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8F/38-12818-A0A77F84 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:29:47 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (host81-138-11-136.in-addr.btopenworld.com [81.138.11.136]) by c2bthomr01.btconnect.com with ESMTP id KBE56143; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:29:42 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <48F77995.1060901@lsces.co.uk> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:27:49 +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 References: <48F6B3C5.9030102@chiaraquartet.net> <7f3ed2c30810152312h5391b25dke2695362c8d28d3b@mail.gmail.com> <48F6E50E.4010107@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <48F6E50E.4010107@lsces.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr01.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0207.48F77A07.00F7,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=127.0.0.1, so=2007-10-30 19:00:17, dmn=5.7.1/2008-09-02 X-Junkmail-IWF: false Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces sanity: addition to RFC explaining why Stas's proposal doesn't work From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) Since this got cut without am answer I'll repeat it since *I* would still like to know the answer! Lester Caine wrote: > So 'USE' ? > I'm I understanding things right on this one that one would 'define' the > namespace in one sort of header file, and then add the use namespace to > those files that build on the basic definition? I'm looking in > particular here at a library like ADOdb, where 'adodb.inc.php' has a > number of global functions which are then used by the various drivers. > So 'adodb.inc.php' would define 'ADOdb' as a namespace and each driver > would > 'use namespace ADOdb' > > This seems a good example to work with and is the reason that simply > dropping functions rang alarm bells with me. In fact it was the Date > stuff from ADOdb that caused so much trouble with 'Date' in earlier > releases so it seems appropriate to investigate how namespace would work > with it? There are obviously other ways the problem could be solved, but > a simply wrapper is the right approach initially? > > Or am I barking up the wrong tree? If #3 is intended to work this way then it gets my vote. Trying to apply namespace something substantial and understanding where the code needs to be changed to work seems more logical than some of the academic examples. -- 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