Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41440 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 57716 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2008 11:47:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Oct 2008 11:47:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.94.239.7 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.94.239.7 mail.jdi-ict.nl Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.94.239.7] ([82.94.239.7:43099] helo=mail.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 50/EC-34199-73AA5094 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 06:47:06 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m9RBl0s5005051; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:47:00 +0100 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:47:00 +0100 (CET) X-X-Sender: derick@kossu.ez.no To: Thomas Lee cc: PHP internals In-Reply-To: <4905A81F.3070506@vector-seven.com> Message-ID: References: <49047D62.1030900@lsces.co.uk> <49059FC1.2060702@vector-seven.com> <9b3df6a50810270411t2b8e050au33d68564225311d4@mail.gmail.com> <4905A81F.3070506@vector-seven.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Thomas Lee wrote: > I disagree that PHP being a dynamic language justifies the > introduction of deeply unpopular syntax. I mean, PHP developers are > your end users. Bad past design decisions aside, you don't want to > alienate your users. > > And yes, this has probably been argued in the past. Unfortunately, it > looks like you have people's attention *now*. > > You're also right in that we can choose another language. I just > wonder why you'd be so eager to encourage it. > > Anyway, my point is that there may be other options. Such as putting > off a long-sought feature until it can be implemented properly. How would delyaing it help? We'd need to have the same discussion anyway. If we could have made :: work, we would have. Greg (and others) spend countless hours trying out different concepts, with different pros and cons -- you can find those on the wiki as RFCs. The only way how all issues could be solved was by picking a different namespace separator. There would have been anything that could have changed this without creating any sort of BC issues. From the possible namespace separators, \ was the best one as we could see. That's how it is, that's how it will be. Now get some coffee and quit bitching. Derick -- HEAD before 5_3!: http://tinyurl.com/6d2esb http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org