On 16/07/2020 22:42, Larry Garfield wrote:
After some discussion, the namespacing proposal has been again updated. Two
major changes:
1) Only engine code goes in \PHP. There's a separate \Ext namespace for
extensions, whether bundled or PECL.
From RFC ...
" This RFC does NOT propose moving any existing code into the \PHP
namespace at this time. That may be done by future RFCs if desired,
under their own votes. This is a “policy document” only. "
So does that also apply to \Ext? Currently the selection of extensions
is flexible and most distributions allow the easy repackaging of just
what is available. Creating a 'core' set off extensions under \PHP is
essentially saying 'you will make these available' while \Ext is a
second class citizen? Personally I think every package even if relegated
to PECL deserves to be under \PHP or alternately ONLY the essential core
engine components go under \PHP and everything else is \Ext
2) It establishes that an index will be maintained on the Wiki listing what
namespaces are already claimed.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_namespace_policy
This is probably (I hope) the final edit of consequence before voting. Speak
now or forever hold your peace.:-)
Many of the 'exotic' functions such as 'reflection' are not essential
for writing good code, so a core \PHP which defines an essential working
set of functions does make sense. What HAS been lost is the development
of better extensions such as a \Ext\String or \Ext|Array extension that
is more 'object orientated' while leaving the legacy functions wrapped
in \PHP ...
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
