> On Aug 23, 2024, at 8:33 AM, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] <imsop....@rwec.co.uk> > wrote: > On 23 August 2024 13:04:22 BST, Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> wrote: >> And how can it occur without an explicit `use >> AcmeComponents\SplineReticulator\Utilities\Text\Text` statement, which I >> proposed would override the automatic `use`, anyway? > > I'm not sure what you mean. Right now, that's the function name that would be > looked up for your example code (other than a couple of unrelated typos in > your example). So if, for some reason, someone was relying on that, their > code would break with your "automatic use".
I must be missing something. Can you give a specific example showing how the automatic use would conflict with something other than a root namespace? >> The only one of those that has a strong analog to existing PHP code is to >> "use the end of the current namespace" as people frequently do with explicit >> `use` statements. > > True. I just don't love the context-sensitive nature of it. Well, we frequently see things differently, which is what it is. Myself, I like the explicit nature of it that allows seeing at a glance that it is Text without having to look up through a long PHP file to find the namespace statement. But as my dad says, to each his own, I guess. Besides, I think there may be some better solutions discussed on this thread besides our dueling qualification syntax. >> Lastly, no comment on `\\`? > > Ah, yes, I forgot to say: I'm not keen on that because in other contexts it > means exactly the opposite: it refers to the absolute root in a context where > a relative name would be assumed. > > For example, \\domain\username and \\server\fileshare on Windows, or > //example.com/foo in a URL Fair point. But then treating built-ins differently than userland globals may be the way to go that has the least BC breakage over either of our two proposals here. That said, having an automatic `use` would be nice for those who want to use it, even if it is not required. -Mike
