Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:62887 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 5414 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2012 01:00:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Sep 2012 01:00:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.163 smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.163] ([67.192.241.163:37836] helo=smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 81/62-03079-34749405 for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 21:00:51 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp26.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 57D3980171; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 21:00:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp26.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 08378800CC; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 21:00:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50494740.6030205@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:00:48 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sherif Ramadan CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <504941BE.30102@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Why are the PHP namespaces different compared to C++? From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > I wasn't assuming. I was outright making a factual statement. I never > made any implications of the intellectual levels of those implementing > the spec. I understand the RFC full well and know why the design is > the way it is. I was answering the ops question. Please read what I > said before you make your own assumptions. Sorry, statements like "haphazard way", "never well designed", "it's a mess", "they don't really resemble namespaces", "just some fancy magic", etc. have nothing to do with facts. Actually, facts are exactly the opposite - they were designed, were extensively discussed with soliciting feedback from many stakeholders, and were implemented exactly as planned. You may not like the way there were implemented, that's your opinion (not a fact) and you are entitled to it. But you didn't limit yourself to saying "I don't like them". You specifically said that they were never well designed and haphazardly implemented. This is factually false. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227