Rasmus -
John's right, because PHP::PHPDateTime would have to become acceptable
syntax. Not the _only available_ syntax, but an acceptable one.
I don't see why that is necessarily the case. We can simply decide that
it isn't.
It isn't _necessarily_ the case but how on earth are you going to treat
PHPDateTime - if that's what you make people call it under PHP 5.2 - as
PHP::DateTime? How are you going to cope with the inevitable
duplications, assuming you work around it?
And above all - why make it so f****ing complicated? Why not just have
Date and later allow it to be PHP::Date or import Date? Why does it have
to involve stuff that nobody in this world apart from javanuts would
understand?
Because there is absolutely no reason to deliberately break our installed
base for a single version when it is quite arbitrary what we call this
class.
Right, now that's two statements I don't get straight away. Which installed
base are we breaking? People who already upgraded to 5.1 and who will
upgrade as we move along and take everything into consideration? Or people
who were with PHP 4.3 and suddenly decide to move to 5.2 without reading
anything beforehand? Don't you think there are rather more issues for the
latter than a single class name? And why do you think the class name is
arbitrary when it self-evidently should be a descriptive name?
We know for a fact that calling it Date will be problematic.
Do we? Even Pierre, who ego-wise has most to lose, thinks it's do-able with
advance warning.
I also don't think a single alias is very hard to figure out, but like I
said, just choosing a slightly more descriptive name for the class is
probably a better solution all around.
I don't think DateTime's more descriptive, I think it's a cop-out. And it's
also longer to type :)
- Steph
-R
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
