On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Greg Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have to respectfully disagree with both of you: > > Stas: choosing an imperfect solution when a better one already exists is > just plain stupid, and isn't what you want *or* what you suggested - the > solution you, Liz, Marcus and Andi proposed is not imperfect, it is > consistent, robust and far better than the existing CVS implementation > of namespaces. Don't sell yourself so short! :) > > Steph: the limited solution proposed by Stas and company (removing > functions [and I would add constants]/fixing name resolution) *is* a > basic solution that can be expanded on. I outlined the steps in my > reply. It's the best solution to the problem, not an imperfect one. A > namespace solution that works brilliantly for classes will satisfy at > least 2/3 of the users who want it.
I guess, I am in these 2/3's. Limited solution (with a promise to extend it later) would work for me, perfectly. -- Alexey Zakhlestin http://blog.milkfarmsoft.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
