# A rebuttal to Re: RFC: Dropping Namespace

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/33821
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/33821
- Started by Ford on 2007-12-07T10:07:47+00:00
- Messages: 1
- Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net
- More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt

---

## #33821 — Ford — 2007-12-07T10:07:47+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/33821#33821

[...snip...]

> In other words, 1 line of code is needed to take advantage of
> namespace's full protection and ability to import conflicting class
> names into the "global" (in this case unqualified, not
> containing :: in
> the name) scope, while at the same time preserving BC with
> existing code
> (no modification needed beyond addition of "namespace __php__;").
> 
> I recommend that the manual specify this convention, and will happily
> take on the documentation of it.

I've only been skimming the namespace argument, so forgive me if this is totally non-sensible, but if such usage is fully BC, and has only upsides with no downside, would there be any mileage in making it implicit rather than explicit -- i.e., any code not explicitly namespaced is automatically in the reserved namespace __php__?  Such usage could be completely invisible to your everyday PHP user, and only need explaining in an intro to namespaces section.

Cheers!

Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ford,  Electronic Information Services Adviser,
JG125, The Headingley Library
James Graham Building, Headingley Campus
Tel: extn 24730        Fax: extn 23211 


To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm