Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66260
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain me.com designates 17.158.232.237 as permitted sender)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <AB950117-17A2-4729-8CB0-0C5CACE0B20C@me.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:07:06 +0100
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: I would like to write an RFC for the addition of an internal keyword
From: ibmurai@me.com (Jens Riisom Schultz)

Hi,

I just want to get a feel for whether the following idea would be =
instantly rejected (for example I get the feeling that adding keywords =
is a big deal):

Often, when writing frameworks, you need to make public or protected =
functionality or classes which should only be called from inside the =
framework. You CAN ensure this with a lot of ninja tricks and =
debug_backtrace, but it is very cumbersome and often hides your methods =
and properties from class signatures.

Therefore I would propose adding a C# style "internal" keyword. ( =
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7c5ka91b(v=3Dvs.80).aspx )

The idea is, simply, that functions, methods and classes marked as =
"internal" would only be accessible from within the namespace in which =
they are defined.

For example the following class, "namespace Framework; internal class =
Something {}", would only be visible from within the "Framework" =
namespace.

I have a hunch that this would be relatively easy to implement.

If noone objects I would attempt to create a patch and an RFC.

What do you think?


-Jens Riisom Schultz=