Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66391
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.128.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: julienpauli@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAMyk_Aa1OFwXDM1Cbpk_XrE_HfVKL2PtCN2CLmmEfo6Oj5U1LA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AB950117-17A2-4729-8CB0-0C5CACE0B20C@me.com> <CAMyk_AbRpFBnNKX3hh=dzoB_RTd1mGN5Aven9pe58C_XNF4Ezw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7E088EEC-ACB7-4977-BE00-CEA17ABD6EC3@me.com> <CALtuQzCj=oTUdXOBt1wX4uYeTpGtKmdyLSrKLYBvPqEWzu7NWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMyk_Aa1OFwXDM1Cbpk_XrE_HfVKL2PtCN2CLmmEfo6Oj5U1LA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 12:11:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMUwpuRiQdtgbdqHe+EnuPNXbdygW6bKXvsyQssDcAkkxXrO8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lazare Inepologlou <linepogl@gmail.com>
Cc: Sebastian Krebs <krebs.seb@gmail.com>, Jens Riisom Schultz <ibmurai@me.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdf9ec2afad04d6db1514
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] I would like to write an RFC for the addition of an
 internal keyword
From: jpauli@php.net (Julien Pauli)

--f46d043bdf9ec2afad04d6db1514
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Lazare Inepologlou <linepogl@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> please read my comment inline...
>
> 2013/2/28 Sebastian Krebs <krebs.seb@gmail.com>
>
> > 2013/2/28 Jens Riisom Schultz <ibmurai@me.com>
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > (I got "hooked off" this discussion, so I have tried to keep up by
> > reading
> > > the digest... This makes it impossible for me to correctly interleave
> my
> > > comments, so I'll just "top post" or whatever the term is) (I'm sure
> this
> > > has been mentioned before but a forum would be so much more accesible
> > than
> > > this mailing list concept...)
> > >
> > >
> > >  * In response to the argument that you want to be able to modify a
> > > framework or use it in an unintended manner:
> > > This would be possible by explicitly stating "namespace Framework;" in
> a
> > > given php file.
> > >
> > >  * In response to the argument that php has no assembly concept:
> > > I know this, but namespaces are as close as we get, and would
> effectively
> > > solve this.
> > >
> >
> > No. A namespace is in fact more or less just a prefix, that groups the
> > containing elements together. Beside the semantic meaning of grouping
> they
> > don't have any further abilities, or meaning.
> > Without knowing exact details I guess, that "internal" in C# is primary a
> > technical thing, that allows a compiler further optimizations, because he
> > definitely knows, that the function/method is only used within the
> assembly
> > and is not required to do anything to expose it to the outside?
> >
> >
> Regardless of the technical details, it is still a fine way of applying
> encaptulation so you can't say that it is only a technical thing.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >  * In response to the argument that php already has accessibility
> > > restrictions with private and protected:
> > > This is true, but it does not solve all problems. Often you need
> classes
> > > to interoperate in a way that can only be facilitated by making
> > > functionality public. Also, there is no way to make a private or
> > protected
> > > class (since php has no assembly concept), though what I propose would
> > > likely birth the concept of private and protected classes as well.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe it's just me, but no: I've never had the need of what you describe
> > and where a public method wasn't apropriate anway... At least for a very
> > long time :D
> >
> >
> > >
> > > * In response to the argument that PHP does not restrict anyone from
> > > adding to a namespace:
> > > That is true, but say you were using Doctrine2. Would you ever make a
> php
> > > file with "namespace Doctrine2;" in it, unless you wanted to modify
> > > Doctrine2, and hence you knew what you were doing, or accepted the
> risks?
> > >
> >
> > Well, yes. But extending/overriding a components method _always_
> requires,
> > that you know what you do, so why enforcing/encouraging hacks, instead of
> > the good old "protected"?
> >
> >
> "Protected" is used for extending classes. There is no mechanism to inherit
> and extend a namespace so "protected" is irrelevant here.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >  * In response to the concept of solving this through documentation:
> > > First off, this is not possible with the current phpdoc and phpdoc2
> > > standards. Second off, problems like these should not be solved by
> > > documentation, imho, or of course I would not propose this. The C#
> > > designers seem to agree with me. And the Java designers, too (though
> they
> > > have no internal keyword they do have a way of hiding framework
> specific
> > > classes).
> > >
> >
>
>
> Actually Java has a concept that is identical to your proposal. The default
> access modifier (when no access modifier is written) is the "package"
> modifier (=accessible from within the same package).
>
> Ha, it's been years since I'm asking for such a feature to come to PHP.

I would love to see a package visibility in PHP, restricting access to
'package'ed members (methods or attributes) to an object born from a class
of the same namespace.
Would really help some cases in frameworks or so :-)

Just my2cents

Julien

--f46d043bdf9ec2afad04d6db1514--