Stas,
Namespace implementations for languages have been around for decades
in one form or another. People use the languages they are used to
developing in to demonstrate their points on how it should work, and
what it should be called when it works a certain way. Its 2007. Given
that we have the benefit of seeing how other languages have attempted to
solve the problem over the years, we can then devise our own
implementation to satisfy the demand. We cannot ignore other languages
implementations that got us to where we are today in language/compiler
design.
At the end of the day, there are two camps of people for naming:
packages vs. namespaces.
You seem to be missing the point that having braces is not for vanity's
sake, and is truly important to the implementation thus lending itself
to actual naming of the implementation.
a) BY NOT HAVING BRACES you have subscribed to FILE BASED scope
termination, thus tying the SCOPING of namespaces to a FILE.
b) BY HAVING BRACES you would be subscribing to a model that terminates
scope of namespace constructs to current scope they are defined within.
The former lends itself to being called a "package" the later lends
itself to being called a "namespace".
You did not answer my other questions on multiple namespaces per file,
and interactive php namespace usage.
-ralph
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
OO. And anyway, are we struggling to find excuses here? Can we in no way
ever at least try to be consistent in anything we do? That JS argument
is an
How "consistent" had acquired a meaning of "doing it my way"? There's
nothing inconsistent in the name "namespace" and it is very consistent
with what people understand - I quoted wiki on that. I'm still waiting
for that non-"C++ does it with braces" argument btw.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
