> Or > a) am I missing something > b) is it the core developers' opinion that core classes have > the right of way?
<kidding> If things behave like that at least there should be a list of "reserved class names" just like with other keywords. And of course that list must not be changed as it is considered practical. </kidding> I don't think PEAR has done anything wrong here; it was never disallowed to have a class named Date. And it's not only a PEAR problem but affects pretty much everyone out there with more than a few hundred lines of OO code. If it was a failure of QA, clearly one of the "language core" QA itself. Maybe namespaces are a solution, but until there is a good solution for the basic problem, stop adding classes to the core that way. Often it's hard enough to find short yet precise class names; and there is also a set of commonly used or agreed-on class names (just think of the common patterns). In no case anything done in the core must inflict with or otherwise touch that set - or forget about that "enterprise ready" stuff altogether. -mp. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
