On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 03:29 +0200, Steph Fox wrote: > Rasmus, I'm sorry but I can't agree with you. When we get namespacing it'll > make perfect sense to have PHP::Foo(). Until then, it makes no sense > whatsoever to me to mess about with plain names for root classes. We aren't > breaking 'tousands of apps out there' unless someone doesn't bother to read > the upgrade guide and happens to have not prefixed their own classes. And if > in that situation, all the user needs to do is search and replace, and all > _we_ need to do is offer support for that replacement that will work in PHP > 4 as well as in PHP 5.2 and beyond.
I agree completely. As I said in a previous post, adoption of PHP 5 is still gaining momentum and most development being done with it is on new apps more then upgrading of existing ones by a huge margin. Faced with this, it makes much more sense to break BC now by naming classes Foo() and Bar() instead of PHPFoo() and PHPBar()... when forward compatibility dictates that PHP::Foo() and PHP::Bar() will be the accepted naming convention. John -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
