firstly, I'd like to reiterate the general sentiment
that Stefans RFC is blinding! (that's a good thing in this context ;-)
Marcus Boerger schreef:
Hello Lars,
we could even go for include here if we wanted to avoid use as much as
adding a new keyword. Personally I don't mind using keywords for different
stuff as long as it cannot conflict. That is in this case true for both
include and use.
how about 'possesses' or 'exhibits' - both these words are closer to the
natural language usage of 'trait' with regard to a subject.
John exhibits a **** trait
Jack possesses a **** trait
a person coming accross 'use' or 'include' in the context of
trait attribution may either make assumptions or become confused as to
possible changes/additions to the use and/or include functionality, a
new keyword that aptly describes the intention will more likely force
users to actually find out what it means.
an another alternative might be 'applies' - which doesn't fit the
natural language usage of 'trait' but does succintly describe what is happening.
just a thought.
marcus
Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 9:31:29 PM, you wrote:
Hi Stefan,
Am Montag, den 18.02.2008, 20:27 +0100 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
class ezcReflectionMethod extends ReflectionMethod {
use ezcReflectionReturnInfo;
/* ... */
}
I'm not sure if the use-keyword is a good idea as namespaces are already
"used". If we use "use" for traits, maybe going back to "import" for
namespaces would be the way to go.
cu, Lars
Best regards,
Marcus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
