On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 10:04 -0800, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > > namespaces bring to the table beyond that, is the ability to > > shorthand the class names within the namespace... as I said candy > > coating. > > You can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't make it true. It > is the capability that enables one to simplify the code by avoiding > spelling out the full name every time.
Ummm, "avoiding spelling out the full name every time" is the same as shorthanding the class name (or for more clarity, the fully resolved class name given the namespaces exist). And I already do that within my code without namespaces. > > everyone had named their classes and functions with appropriate > prefixes then this would be a non-issue. Seriously, how were so many > people so > > As I said, namespaces is not only names, so it is not true. Yes, but the main push for namespaces is to solve the problem of colliding names. > > Hope this clears up your confusion, although I doubt you were > > particularly confused. > > I wasn't confused, I was surprised that after all the explanations > people still make such strange claims which have nothing to do with > what namespaces really are. And as I said before, I'm not for or against namespaces. I still stand by the phrase that they are sugar. obviously, given the lengths of arguments and discussions about them on this list, they don't seem to be contributing in particular to the KISS principle. Cheers, Rob. -- ........................................................... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ........................................................... -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
