At 12:46 PM 10/1/2001 +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote: >[Zak Greant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > > On September 30, 2001 06:15 pm, Wez Furlong wrote: > > > What about "." then (Java/Delphi)? > > > > > > --Wez. > > > > Wouldn't that conflict with the concatenation operator? > > > > Unless I am mistaken, it looks like only the following single symbols > > are available: % * | \ (outside of quotes at least) > >Uhm, % and * are taken for modulo and multiplication. > >So how do these look: > > HTML\Table - looks too 1980 > HTML|Table - hmm, weird > >I still think Zeev's suggestion (HTML::Table) is very good, if it >doesn't impose too much runtime overhead.
I don't like Zeev's suggestion because it does impose an extra hash lookup (usually it'll be two) and probably some more logic too. I don't think that new features we add today should suffer from run-time overhead some constructs from the past have had to suffer. By the way, it also has some ambiguities. Is foo::bar() a function in class foo or in namespace foo. No one said you can't have a namespace foo when you have a class foo. I think the best way to go is to go with ':' and live with the ambiguity. Many languages have such ambiguities and it's probably not such a big deal. In light of :: also having ambiguities why not go with :? Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
