Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66398
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMUwpuRiQdtgbdqHe+EnuPNXbdygW6bKXvsyQssDcAkkxXrO8Q@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>
	<CAMUwpuRiQdtgbdqHe+EnuPNXbdygW6bKXvsyQssDcAkkxXrO8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:44:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGovj_OnKtO+WkrbA_vUYtvchOYq5TQ_CbTes+aL3SaXDHFnLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04462e7a34710004d6e23b49
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] I would like to write an RFC for the addition of an
 internal keyword
From: dmgx.michael@gmail.com (Michael Morris)

--f46d04462e7a34710004d6e23b49
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

My thoughts are that no additional keyword is necessary - allow protected
and private to be used in this scopes. A protected element of a namespace
can be accessed within that namespace or any sub-namespaces, and a private
element would only be visible by code in the same namespace.  Hence

namespace A {
  protected class Bar(){}
}

namespace B {
  new \A\Bar(); // fails, protected.
}

namespace A\C {
  new \A\Bar(); // works, C is A's child.

  private class Foo();
}


namespace A\C\D {
  new \A\C\Foo(); // fails, private and only reachable from \A\C
}


This accomplishes the same as the proposed keyword, and then some, and
doesn't introduce the BC break of a new keyword.


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net> wrote:

> 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
>

--f46d04462e7a34710004d6e23b49--