Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41197
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sleepycode.com designates 67.222.38.58 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: good
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=sleepycode.com;
	h=Received:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer:X-user;
	b=SMZsGItUULDiq3czRjfDFRS8CLAjZ11FiNvxbj9lzQ52aw2MXazbamErvMTh7uOdjYGa6AiLPoRGZcQzRH4V20Z+389WK9i1JIUSXleuzPgg2GCsGBTaHkuz+45bk+Ht;
Message-ID: <3E890EEC-DB77-4C8B-912B-C33600F6C6FF@sleepycode.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <1224217882.1712.431.camel@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:52:50 -0700
References: <dcf5f2ea0810161918o3a9fa381q4588f93b65d57b1f@mail.gmail.com> <6fef9b880810161948x4cb98c08r1f92543f75592533@mail.gmail.com> <1224217882.1712.431.camel@localhost>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote from a "Mere User"
From: me@sleepycode.com (Jeremy Darwood)

I am a "mere user" you can consider as well. I usually just read =20
internals. I wanted to add input into the namespace issue.

Using a difference of ::: or :: for separators is really confusing. I =20=

could slip up in programing by missing a single : and then have to go =20=

back to debug and it would be very easy to miss this.
I don't think option 1 and 2 would work here unless we used a =20
different separator. At this time I do not have a suggestion for a =20
separator. My eye sight isn't all that perfect, in fact typing them in =20=

this message, I had to double check I typed them correctly. Although =20
this solves it, this isn't very user friendly.

Option 3 sounds nice, but since reading a previous internals note, you =20=

can use these in a if/else statement. Which I would prefer almost for =20=

those weird cases where you need to only include a class if it was for =20=

something specific such as a database, operating system or php version =20=

compatibility.

The issue I see with number 4 is lets say I have a forum and a cms. If =20=

I wanted to bridge those two and they had this conflict, I wouldn't be =20=

able to bridge these two very easily now. Conflicting code while =20
working with apis and other open source/free scripts is my only =20
concern with this.

That said, I think option 3 would work the best here with option 1 as =20=

another choice if we used a different separator that was more unique.


Jeremy

On Oct 16, 2008, at 9:31 PM, Mark wrote:

> A "mere user" here too with some php namespace experience (with =20
> current
> implementation).
>
> Issue 1: Choice #4, with a fallback on choice #3
>
> Issue 2: This should be a php.ini option, typically it's going to =20
> cause
> a lot of (useless) calls to __autoload() for some existing code while
> migrating to a namespace-oriented code.
> This is also going to break things for some people who use require() =20=

> in
> __autoload().
>
>
> Mark
>
> Le vendredi 17 octobre 2008 =E0 13:18 +1030, Josh a =E9crit :
>> I'm another "mere user", but here are my votes
>>
>> Issue 1: Choice #3
>>
>> Issue 2: Agree with Greg.
>>
>> Josh Heidenreich
>> ZCE
>>
>
>
> --=20
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>