Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99537
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain fleshgrinder.com from 77.244.243.86 cause and error)
References: <990f6d85-e3ed-05a4-42e0-d3a279c0ebe7@fleshgrinder.com>
To: php-internals <internals@lists.php.net>,
 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99486270-c505-56fb-5bd2-b90578ade0df@fleshgrinder.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2017 10:07:24 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <990f6d85-e3ed-05a4-42e0-d3a279c0ebe7@fleshgrinder.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="PoofaOLB5cWw8VnKK4xSVoG0X7s5X19Ib"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Namespaces in Core
From: php@fleshgrinder.com (Fleshgrinder)

--PoofaOLB5cWw8VnKK4xSVoG0X7s5X19Ib
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="wmrC7j3D2Mh0xOWVWTqD14O6BrlOxjqn5";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: Fleshgrinder <php@fleshgrinder.com>
To: php-internals <internals@lists.php.net>,
 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99486270-c505-56fb-5bd2-b90578ade0df@fleshgrinder.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Namespaces in Core
References: <990f6d85-e3ed-05a4-42e0-d3a279c0ebe7@fleshgrinder.com>
In-Reply-To: <990f6d85-e3ed-05a4-42e0-d3a279c0ebe7@fleshgrinder.com>

--wmrC7j3D2Mh0xOWVWTqD14O6BrlOxjqn5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 6/3/2017 6:40 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> Next promised RFC (and the last one for this weekend):
>=20
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces-in-core
>=20
> I am unsure about whether we should avoid the usage of abbreviations fo=
r
> things like language (lang), standard (std), and utility (util). I thin=
k
> it is not necessary to write them out fully, but, well, ...?!?
>=20

Bump! Voting could start tomorrow, but I would like to wait for the
outcome of the class naming [1] RFC and update this one before going to
vote. I also believe that there is actually still the need for further
discussion here.

@Nikita you are always quoted in this context. I would love to hear your
feedback on the RFC. I still believe that I addressed your concerns, and
actually agree with you. I hope that you understand the examples as,
well, examples.

@All I would still love some feedback on the open issues. I would also
be happy if you have ideas how the RFC could be made clearer. I know
that many want to see namespaces in core, this is a chance. Otherwise we
need to wait at least six months before a new proposal can be voted on
(see rule).

[1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/class-naming

--=20
Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger


--wmrC7j3D2Mh0xOWVWTqD14O6BrlOxjqn5--

--PoofaOLB5cWw8VnKK4xSVoG0X7s5X19Ib
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=tYia
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--PoofaOLB5cWw8VnKK4xSVoG0X7s5X19Ib--