Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41178
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain macvicar.net from 193.227.246.108 cause and error)
To: "Steph Fox" <steph@php.net>
In-Reply-To: <002501c92fee$0d296b70$3ffc1f3e@foxbox>
References: <48F653FF.5010106@chiaraquartet.net> <48F7D0F6.20707@macvicar.net> <002501c92fee$0d296b70$3ffc1f3e@foxbox>
Message-ID: <C1889DA8-7926-4D4D-BA84-85535C5A8D22@macvicar.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 01:19:52 +0100
Cc: "Greg Beaver" <greg@chiaraquartet.net>,
 "PHP Developers Mailing List" <internals@lists.php.net>
X-Spam_Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "lovelace.midden.org.uk", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  On 17 Oct 2008, at 01:19, Steph Fox wrote: > Heya Scott, >
	>> I'd much rather see ::: used and don't care too much about those with
	>> code already written, we never guarantee BC on unreleased versions. > >
	Well, that narrows it down to #1 or #2. > >> Though I don't object to #3
	at all either, so indifferent! > > OK, so we have #1, #2 or #3 now from you.
	What should I put down as > your primary vote? [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-4.0 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-1.8 ALL_TRUSTED            Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.4 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] my last attempt at sanity with namespaces
From: scott@macvicar.net (Scott MacVicar)

On 17 Oct 2008, at 01:19, Steph Fox wrote:

> Heya Scott,
>
>> I'd much rather see ::: used and don't care too much about those with
>> code already written, we never guarantee BC on unreleased versions.
>
> Well, that narrows it down to #1 or #2.
>
>> Though I don't object to #3 at all either, so indifferent!
>
> OK, so we have #1, #2 or #3 now from you. What should I put down as  
> your primary vote?

#1 and then #3.

>
>
>> Regarding internal class resolving, it seems logical but will slow  
>> down
>> resolution within namespaces. But I doubt this is much of an issue  
>> as it
>> doesn't affect those not using namespaces.
>
> This appears to have been resolved between the two (and everybody  
> else) now. Greg and Stas actually want the same thing here, they  
> just misunderstood one another. (@Greg, @Stas: correct me if I'm  
> wrong.

Scott