Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41442 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 68685 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2008 12:16:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Oct 2008 12:16:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=addw@phcomp.co.uk; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=addw@phcomp.co.uk; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain phcomp.co.uk designates 213.152.38.186 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: addw@phcomp.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 213.152.38.186 freshmint.phcomp.co.uk Linux 2.6 Received: from [213.152.38.186] ([213.152.38.186:61452] helo=mint.phcomp.co.uk) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0F/1F-34199-501B5094 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:16:08 -0500 Received: from addw by mint.phcomp.co.uk with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KuR0s-0007RJ-Ta for internals@lists.php.net; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:16:02 +0000 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:16:02 +0000 To: PHP internals Message-ID: <20081027121602.GY30862@mint.phcomp.co.uk> References: <49047D62.1030900@lsces.co.uk> <49059FC1.2060702@vector-seven.com> <9b3df6a50810270411t2b8e050au33d68564225311d4@mail.gmail.com> <4905A81F.3070506@vector-seven.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4905A81F.3070506@vector-seven.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Organization: Parliament Hill Computers Ltd Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: From: addw@phcomp.co.uk (Alain Williams) I apologise for being silent on this issue to date (been busy), but I feel that I must comment even if the decision is now 'final'. On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:38:07PM +1100, 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*. Like mine. The backslash character will cause much WTF to even experienced people. \ is just too *magic* in all sorts of ways. Trying to interpolate into a string is one that will cause huge problems. How about :.: -- OK it is a bit longer, but is clear, it doesn't suffer from the problem that ::: has (ie 2 or 3 ':'s leading to errors). I believe that '.' and ':' are available on most national language keyboards. The real problem is that we have run out of extra symbols. If you don't like the suggestion above, there are many others in that family, eg: :=: :+: :_: :-: :@: <:> <@> The other thing that has always puzzled me about namespaces is that they do NOT include varaibles - one of the things that I would most want to wrap up in a namespace. I accept that variables in a namespace would not be in $GLOBALS, but that is no great loss ... if people *really* want it we could always define: $_NAMESPACEVARS['foo:.:bar'] as an array of variables in namespace foo:.:bar. Maybe $_NAMESPACES would be an array of all namespaces that are defined. -- Alain Williams Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php Past chairman of UKUUG: http://www.ukuug.org/ #include