On Wednesday 16 July 2008 9:36:24 pm Greg Beaver wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some questions about namespaces now that PHP 5.3 continues to evolve
>
> 1) Do we need functions in namespaces now that we have closures?
>
> One of the main reasons I wanted functions in namespaces was to
> implement callbacks. Now that we have closures in PHP 5.3, for me there
> is no longer any good reason to have functions in namespaces other than
> porting legacy code.
>
> Because the only remaining serious naming conflict is between namespaced
> functions and static class methods, I wonder how many people would find
> closures an acceptable substitute for allowing functions in namespaces?
> Also, see #3 as a way to solve the question of porting old code.
>
> My assumption is that namespaces are best as a library helper for
> re-usable classes.
I don't know whether +1 or -1 would mean "keep namespaced functions" here, so
I will just say "Keep namespaced functions!"
very_long_function_names_for_namespacing is just as much a problem as long
class names for the same reason. My primary development system is 99%
functions, and uses name-based namespacing now. Real namespaces would be
quite a boon and solve a dozen or so problems for us, if they work right.
> 2) Do we really need namespaced constants?
Eh, +0.5. :-)
> 3) Now that it has been pointed out that use can't be used in brackets,
> could we consider moving namespace syntax to a syntax proposal Dmitry
> made a while ago:
>
> <?php
> namespace Foo {
> }
> namespace Bar {
> // this shows how to port legacy code - you simply have to explicitly
> use old functions.
> use ::blah();
> }
> namespace {
> function blah(){}
> }
> ?>
I don't recall the full proposal so I cannot comment as the devil is in the
details. In general, transitioning from non-namespaced code to namespaced
code should be as graceful as possible (e.g., avoiding a requirement to
explicitly name all global functions you're going to use within a given block
before using them.)
> The last example would be for porting legacy un-namespaced code (for
> instance, utility functions) or global application code that uses the
> previous stuff.
>
> If possible, could answers to these questions be limited to +1/-1? I
> would like to get a sense of how controversial these ideas are rather
> than to just debate them. If you absolutely must reply with other
> ideas, then please start a new thread.
Sorry, it wasn't really possible. :-(
--
Larry Garfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
