Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81488 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 31575 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2015 15:11:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 Jan 2015 15:11:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=markus@fischer.name; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=markus@fischer.name; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain fischer.name from 62.179.121.50 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: markus@fischer.name X-Host-Fingerprint: 62.179.121.50 fep32.mx.upcmail.net Solaris 10 (beta) Received: from [62.179.121.50] ([62.179.121.50:42044] helo=fep32.mx.upcmail.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 43/42-16633-B80FCC45 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 10:11:08 -0500 Received: from edge02.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.237]) by viefep32-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.8.01.05.13 201-2260-151-135-20130320) with ESMTP id <20150131151104.BLMT12890.viefep32-int.chello.at@edge02.upcmail.net> for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:11:04 +0100 Received: from mail02.home ([213.47.1.174]) by edge02.upcmail.net with edge id mfB21p01V3lFLNl01fB2da; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:11:03 +0100 X-SourceIP: 213.47.1.174 Received: from mail02.home ([192.168.1.14] helo=[IPv6:::1]) by mail02.home with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YHZhO-0007hK-La for internals@lists.php.net; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:11:03 +0100 Message-ID: <54CCF086.9090904@fischer.name> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:11:02 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "scanner01.home", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On 31.01.15 01:09, Marcio Almada wrote: > After a period of research along with part of the PHP community I'd > like to present this RFC which aims to improve PHP namespaces. > > The RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/group_use_declarations > Along with its pull request: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1005 > > Needless to say, I'm open to suggestions that could improve the proposal. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Group Use Declarations From: markus@fischer.name (Markus Fischer) On 31.01.15 01:09, Marcio Almada wrote: > After a period of research along with part of the PHP community I'd > like to present this RFC which aims to improve PHP namespaces. > > The RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/group_use_declarations > Along with its pull request: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1005 > > Needless to say, I'm open to suggestions that could improve the proposal. The RFC says: "Group use statements makes it easier to identify that multiple imported entities are from the same module." IMHO that's too subjective. What "is hard" with the current state of affairs? Btw, here's a CON you can add to the RFC (and, btw., it doesn't contain any): - Prevents searching sources literally for used namespaces Another observation thing from my side: with proper tooling I almost can't remember when I wrote the statements by hand; they usually a) get automatically managed b) thus alphabetically sorted and c) folded away in general. What is the real benefit of using groups it and who's the group benefiting from that change? Maybe you can expand on that in the RFC. sincerely, - Markus