On 17 Aug 2007, at 1146, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Again, you are trying to use a keyword based on what developer's most know. You want to release a sort of namespace implementation and frustrate users, that expect a true namespace implementation.Please stop doing this. PHP namespace implementation is as "true" as it gets, even in current form (which of course might be changed, extended, etc. but it doesn't make it less true).
I think you've missed his point. He's not talking about the abstract concept of namespaces. He's talking about specific language features accessed via the keyword 'namespace'.
The core of the argument to rename is that using the keyword 'namespace' will confuse developers who have experience with that keyword in other languages, since PHP does not match the most common syntax (C++). This is completely separate from whether the PHP language feature is a good implementation of the abstract namespace concept. The keyword does not define the feature -- the keyword defines _expectations_ about the keyword.
PHP is getting a namespaces feature -- this is excellent. Giving it the same keyword as a syntax-incompatible feature of other languages is going to cause confusion -- that's bad.
Now, the keyword 'package' has similar problems, but to a much smaller degree since the syntax of the PHP language feature is similar to that of the Java feature. Still, any confusion is best avoided so 'package' should probably join 'namespace' on the pile of rejected keywords.
'prefix', as suggested in the other thread, seems to nicely describe the concept and would still describe the concept if the feature was extended out to full-on C++- or Java-style syntax. And I can't think of any languages with a confusingly similar keyword.
scott.
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
