At 14:13 02.06.2003, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
stasMon Jun 2 08:13:11 2003 EDT
Modified files:
/ZendEngine2[...]
Log:
MEGA-patch: namespaces are R.I.P.
Hi all,
removing namespaces because of a few remaining problems was a very bad idea.
And after reading the last th
I strongly disagree. Please re-read the original thread to see our
arguments against yours.
Some of them are:
- Problem with import.
- Problem with variables.
- Enterprise applications including UML tools have been written without
namespaces (I have taken part in quite a few such projects includi
At 20:29 02.06.2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I strongly disagree. Please re-read the original thread to see our
arguments against yours.
There were no arguments just some sentences (from Zeev iirc) stating that it
can't work and that i am expecting something else. Since i don't see problems
with my id
At 01:00 AM 6/3/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
At 20:29 02.06.2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I strongly disagree. Please re-read the original thread to see our
arguments against yours.
There were no arguments just some sentences (from Zeev iirc) stating that it
can't work and that i am expecting some
At 02:00 03/06/2003, Marcus Börger wrote:
Perhaps :-) I wanted to stress out what we lack and make clear that all
problems
could be solved.
Technically, maybe. I don't even want to argue. What cannot be solved is
the fact that the obscurity added by namespaces and related features is way
too h
On Tue, 03 Jun 2003, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Technically, maybe. I don't even want to argue. What cannot be solved is
> the fact that the obscurity added by namespaces and related features is way
> too high a price for the questionable gain they give. I'm sorry we weren't
> bright enough to pre
The powers have decided that I have to argue?
You're invited to argue as much as you please if you feel like spending
your time on this. It appears that on the arguing front the C++/Java
zealots are always on the winning side because they appear to have endless
patience and they're represented
I'm a little confused - which kind of zealots are we talking about?
The folks who want to do everything in one language, or not? :)
As far as namespaces are concerned - a nice idea, but not something I'd
personally miss. Sounded like not everyone was comfortable with the
implementation of na
On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 19:01, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> It appears that on the arguing front the C++/Java
> zealots are always on the winning side because they appear to have endless
> patience and they're represented in an entirely non proportional way in
> this forum.
Non-proportional to what?
--
