Jochem Maas wrote: > hi Dmirty, > >> >>>> I really don't see a reason to change namespace syntax into a less >>>> intuitive way. >>> I don't think the current implementation is intuitive, the ambiguity >>> issues, >>> (and possibly the name resolution order, although I can't grok what the >>> current >>> state of that is) are rather large WTFs. >>> >>>> Your speed degradation argument isn't truth. The >>>> ambiguity problem exists, but it is just an ability to use php in a >>>> wrong way. Just don't create conflicting names. >>> which begs the question, what was namespaces created for? >>> (that's a serious question because your statement has me truly confused) >>> > > you didn't answer the question (and AFAIC the readme doesn't either).
The main reason of namespaces is resolution of name conflicts and ability to use the same names in different scopes. >> >> README.namespaces was committed into PHP_5_3 about year ago. > a 14 month old document which doesn't cover the status quo, > and begins with a disingenuous statement about the problem namespaces > try to > solve (is that really all there is to namespaces? to avoid typing long > class names? Yes, you are right. It's need to be adopted to current situation which might be changed once again... > most people have auto-complete features in their editor to take care of > that 'problem' > and it really doesn't explain why constants or functions exist in > namespaces at all.) I see you point, and you might be satisfied with decision which is going to be final, however from my point of view function and constants must be allowed in namesapaces just because they are parts of the language. Thanks. Dmitry. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
