Hello Jochem,
good arguments. And good ideas. I'd favor 'posesses' then.
marcus
Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 9:54:09 PM, you wrote:
> 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
>>
Best regards,
Marcus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
