Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41452
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 64.99.136.161 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <03a201c93837$9fcf4ed0$3ffc1f3e@foxbox>
To: "Thomas Lee" <tom@vector-seven.com>
Cc: "Arvids Godjuks" <arvids.godjuks@gmail.com>,
	"Lester Caine" <lester@lsces.co.uk>,
	"PHP internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <d1bff87d0810260351n4361e42n62b86165ef56c70@mail.gmail.com>	 <49047D62.1030900@lsces.co.uk> <49059FC1.2060702@vector-seven.com> <9b3df6a50810270411t2b8e050au33d68564225311d4@mail.gmail.com> <4905A81F.3070506@vector-seven.com> <031f01c9382c$670224c0$3ffc1f3e@foxbox> <4905BBD3.5060404@vector-seven.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:26:29 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="UTF-8";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: </endnamespacediscussion>
From: steph@php.net ("Steph Fox")

Hi Thomas,

> Actually I've been following namespaces for a fair while, but the issue of 
> :: being a problem wasn't really raised until a few weeks ago. So while 
> I'm aware of namespaces being under discussion for a fair while, yesterday 
> was the first I'd heard about a decision being made for the backslash 
> being used as a namespace separator. Sounds like I'm not the only one.

OK, sorry if that seemed unfair. I should've aimed it at certain others 
really ;)

You're correct, the :: issues were only fully understood when Greg took the 
time to investigate the options thoroughly. So you didn't miss a lot.

Namespace *separator* discussions were long-winded and involved every Tom 
Dick and Harry turning up on internals@ with increasingly bizarre ideas, 
every time the subject arose over the last few years. That was when the real 
discussion of separator options took place.

Lukas simply summarized the issues around the available options in his table 
during the irc discussion last Saturday, but the fact is he couldn't have 
really known the criteria - or the available symbols - without having those 
lengthy public discussions behind him. We couldn't have known his criteria 
and symbol set were correct without that history either; we'd have been 
stuck on 'why not :' forever.

> Hope it all works out, either way.

As do we all :)

- Steph