# [RFC] Namespaced in bundled extensions - Thread: https://externals.io/message/113270 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/113270 - Started by Nikita Popov on 2021-02-25T20:26:09+00:00 - Messages: 5 - RFC: Namespaces in bundled PHP extensions (Accepted) — https://externals.io/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions.md - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · RFCs at https://externals.io/rfc.md · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #113270 — Nikita Popov — 2021-02-25T20:26:09+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/113270#113270 Hi internals, The question of namespaces in the stdlib has been coming up a lot recently, so I'd like to present my own stab at resolving this question: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions Relative to a number of previous (declined) proposals, the main difference is that I do not propose a top-level "PHP\" vendor namespace, and instead recommend the use of "ExtName\", in line with existing practice for extensions. I believe this addresses the primary concern with previous proposals. Regards, Nikita --- ## #113281 — Benjamin Morel — 2021-02-26T11:17:59+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/113270#113281 · In reply to: #113270 Thank you for this RFC, Nikita. This is a necessary first step in the right direction. Even though this is out of scope for this RFC, I hope that moving standard functions to namespaces will be an opportunity to fix inconsistencies in parameter order, like: array_map($callback, array) array_filter($array, $callback) and not just an alias under a namespace! — Benjamin > Hi internals, > > The question of namespaces in the stdlib has been coming up a lot recently, > so I'd like to present my own stab at resolving this question: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions > > Relative to a number of previous (declined) proposals, the main difference > is that I do not propose a top-level "PHP\" vendor namespace, and instead > recommend the use of "ExtName\", in line with existing practice for > extensions. I believe this addresses the primary concern with previous > proposals. > > Regards, > Nikita --- ## #113283 — Guilliam Xavier — 2021-02-26T11:24:18+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/113270#113283 · In reply to: #113281 On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:18 PM Benjamin Morel wrote: > Thank you for this RFC, Nikita. This is a necessary first step in the right > direction. > > Even though this is out of scope for this RFC, I hope that moving standard > functions to namespaces will be an opportunity to fix inconsistencies in > parameter order, like: > > array_map($callback, array) > array_filter($array, $callback) > > and not just an alias under a namespace! > Maybe off-topic, but I don't think you could "fix" them: for array_map, the array is variadic-like, so must be last; for array_filter, the callback is optional, so must be after the array. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) -- Guilliam Xavier --- ## #113287 — Benjamin Morel — 2021-02-26T12:53:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/113270#113287 · In reply to: #113283 > > Maybe off-topic, but I don't think you could "fix" them: > for array_map, the array is variadic-like, so must be last; > for array_filter, the callback is optional, so must be after the array. > (Correct me if I'm wrong.) > > -- > Guilliam Xavier > Good point. Then that would be an opportunity to question whether `array_map()` is doing too much, and should just work on a single array. Like Array.map() in JS, Stream.map() in Java, Iterator.map() in Rust, etc. — Benjamin --- ## #113289 — Pierre — 2021-02-26T13:20:36+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/113270#113289 · In reply to: #113270 Le 25/02/2021 à 21:26, Nikita Popov a écrit : > Hi internals, > > The question of namespaces in the stdlib has been coming up a lot recently, > so I'd like to present my own stab at resolving this question: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions > > Relative to a number of previous (declined) proposals, the main difference > is that I do not propose a top-level "PHP\" vendor namespace, and instead > recommend the use of "ExtName\", in line with existing practice for > extensions. I believe this addresses the primary concern with previous > proposals. > > Regards, > Nikita Hello, Thank you so much for this RFC, this is a big +1 for me. There's only one caveat: wouldn't this create name conflicts with some existing third-party libraries ? Anyway, if it does, it'll conflict with Array, or Password, or OpenSSL named libraries, and in this case, it means they have voluntarily ignored the vendoring convention, which is evil-designed since they would take a common name as root namespaces and prevent legitimate use of those, and they should probably be fixed. -- Pierre