All,
After seeing Dmitry's patch, all he is allowing inside a module are import
statements and classes.
So, the question is, can we scrap both namespace constants and namespace
functions and just stay with classes (as was agreed on several months ago,
Andi himself agreeing to it)? This would make the patch smaller, simpler,
AND would allow me to reuse the "::" operator (and there would be no
conflicts with ternary operations).
I think this is the best solution thus far. If any one of you still feels a
need for constants/functions, PLEASE show me a valid example that cannot
be accomplished by just simply putting the constant/function inside a class
in the namespace.
If I don't hear of any valid arguments, then I'm going to go ahead and scrap
constants and functions and then concentrate on the final details of the
patch.
Regards,
Jessie Hernandez
So, the question is, can we scrap both namespace constants and namespace
functions and just stay with classes (as was agreed on several months ago,
Andi himself agreeing to it)? This would make the patch smaller, simpler,
AND would allow me to reuse the "::" operator (and there would be no
conflicts with ternary operations).
Absolutely. Static methods and Class constants are more than sufficient.
All the added functionality of namespaces without all the baggage.
+1
-Sara
Hello Sara,
Please explain what the difference is between nested classes, and
this type of namespacing?
If you scrapped namespace constants and functions, then all we have
left is classes. If it was looked at as nested classes, then we get
all the functionality with all the simplicity and the benefit of
being able to use "::".
Please take a moment to explain, because I am an avid user, not a
tokenizer :)
--
Best regards,
Jason mailto:jason@ionzoft.com
Monday, November 28, 2005, 5:25:41 PM, you wrote:
So, the question is, can we scrap both namespace constants and namespace
functions and just stay with classes (as was agreed on several months ago,
Andi himself agreeing to it)? This would make the patch smaller, simpler,
AND would allow me to reuse the "::" operator (and there would be no
conflicts with ternary operations).
SG> Absolutely. Static methods and Class constants are more than sufficient.
SG> All the added functionality of namespaces without all the baggage.
SG> +1
SG> -Sara
Sara Golemon schrieb:
All the added functionality of namespaces without all the baggage.
+1
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69
Hello Jessie,
i already showed that dropping constants in namespaces leeds to static
classes or private classes. So we are just shifting here. Instead of doing
work that is worth nothing you should simply try to come up with a working
patch using a working separator which can clearly only be "".
best regards
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 11:04:43 PM, you wrote:
All,
After seeing Dmitry's patch, all he is allowing inside a module are import
statements and classes.
So, the question is, can we scrap both namespace constants and namespace
functions and just stay with classes (as was agreed on several months ago,
Andi himself agreeing to it)? This would make the patch smaller, simpler,
AND would allow me to reuse the "::" operator (and there would be no
conflicts with ternary operations).
I think this is the best solution thus far. If any one of you still feels a
need for constants/functions, PLEASE show me a valid example that cannot
be accomplished by just simply putting the constant/function inside a class
in the namespace.
If I don't hear of any valid arguments, then I'm going to go ahead and scrap
constants and functions and then concentrate on the final details of the
patch.
Regards,
Jessie Hernandez
Best regards,
Marcus
MB>>work that is worth nothing you should simply try to come up with a working
MB>>patch using a working separator which can clearly only be "".
That's one creative way of using "working", "clearly" and "only" with
meanings that I was not familiar with before. :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115
Jessie Hernandez schrieb:
I think this is the best solution thus far. If any one of you still feels a
need for constants/functions, PLEASE show me a valid example that cannot
be accomplished by just simply putting the constant/function inside a class
in the namespace.
No complaints from me. I try to avoid both since a long time. Functions
would be nice, simply for convenience (sometimes one wants to use
something so often that a static method just isn't as nice), but I
really don't see any need for global constants EXCEPT that supporting
everything that's currently OUTSIDE of namespaces would allow to
completetly clean it without further work.
If I don't hear of any valid arguments, then I'm going to go ahead and scrap
constants and functions and then concentrate on the final details of the
patch.
Did you give the "no namespaces in the ternary" idea a try?
Even if this doesn't make it I'd be happy to know if it works.
Anyways, +2 for both : and ::
OLLi
PS: I'm now preparing the final table. We should not stretch this any
more ;-) The First subscribers are getting heart attcks from too much
mail...