Steph Fox wrote:

Please can those people who didn't already express a clear and relevant
opinion, express it now? We don't have long to play with this if there's to
be namespace support in 5.3.

At present it looks like a two-horse race between #1 full disambiguation
(:::) and #3 explicit disambiguation ('use namespace').

Method of tally: anything that would be acceptable to the voter gets a
point. (A weighted version is also offered here.)

D/S means 'with different separator'.

Name Issue A Issue B

Greg #2 (alt #3, #1) Yes
Guilherme #3 Yes
Kalle #4 Yes
Tony Bibbs #3 Yes
Jaroslav Hanslik #1 (alt #3) Yes
Nathan Rixham #4 (D/S) N/A
Liz #1 or #3 Yes
Andrei - 'agreed with Gregs approach' N/A
Janusz Lewandowski #4 Yes
Steph #3 (alt #2) Abstained
Josh Davies - '#1 and #2 are functionally the same' N/A
Hannes - put in a plea for classes only in 5.3 N/A
Lester - WROTE SOMETHING LOUD N/A
Alexey #3 Yes
Marc Boeren #1 (D/S) N/A
Derick #1 No
Vesselin Kenashkov #3 Yes
Lars #3 (alt #2) N/A
Karsten Damberkalns #1 (alt #3) Yes
Jochem Maas #2 (alt #3, #1) Yes
Richard Quadling #1 (alt #2) No

Issue A:
#1 - 8 (1 with different separator)
#2 - 5
#3 - 11
#4 - 3 (1 with different separator)

Issue A weighted (first choice gets 2 points, rest 1):
#1 - 12 + 2 = 14
#2 - 4 + 3 = 7
#3 - 12 + 5 = 17
#4 - 6 + 0 = 6

Issue B:
Yes - 11
No - 2 (see Richard's rationale tho')
Abs - 1
N/A - 7

you can add me down for a +1 on the solution to Issue B as well

• makes logical sense

Please can those people who didn't already express a clear and
relevant
opinion, express it now?

Issue A: #1.
Issue B: Yes.

Janusz Lewandowski #4 Yes

My alternative choice for A is #3.

Please can those people who didn't already express a clear and
relevant
opinion, express it now? We don't have long to play with this if
there's to
be namespace support in 5.3.

At present it looks like a two-horse race between #1 full
disambiguation
(:::) and #3 explicit disambiguation ('use namespace').

Method of tally: anything that would be acceptable to the voter gets a
point. (A weighted version is also offered here.)

D/S means 'with different separator'.

i guess i should note that Steph's tally only includes votes on Greg's
proposal. Stas proposal is obviously also still up for vote. In that
sense "doesnt work" is maybe a bit too harshly said in the appendix of
Greg's proposal, though it does obviously point out an issue. Overall
no proposal comes without some caveat (or this all would be easy).

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
mls@pooteeweet.org

2008/10/16 Steph Fox steph@php.net:

Please can those people who didn't already express a clear and relevant
opinion, express it now? We don't have long to play with this if there's to
be namespace support in 5.3.

Hi,

As far as I'm concerned, my preference goes to:

2. use a different separator between namespace name and element [with
   a plea for not using :::]
   Yes, please change the resolution order to 1. if blah::Exception
   exists, use it 2. try to autoload blah::Exception 3. if internal class
   Exception exists, use it

With that said, while I truly appreciate my opinion being taken under
consideration, I also hope that decisions won't be made or pushed
based on poll numbers alone (even though I don't remember any such
occurence in the list's past) and that greater weight will be given to
those who are already using namespaces in big, open, projects, such as
the Typo3 guys. It would be bad if an anonymous crowd speculating on
issues they have yet to encounter could overweight the bunch of guys
who have actually been using namespaces for month. I mean, if an
anonymous crowd can get a MTV award to Rick Astley, they can get
anything voted as namespace operator! :)

Anyway, thanks for the tally, it gives a better overview of people's opinions.

JD