I would agree, they seem to cause more problems and pollution than it would solve. I like the idea behind namespaces but what I've seen of the current implementations I would rather do without. Unfortunately I don't have any ideas or solutions to the problems.
/James Dempster On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > Derick Rethans wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote: > > > > > > > it won't be a serious 'wtf', as on the top of the file, there > > > > would be some kind of use MySuperLibrary::DateTime; > > > > > > I know, but 400 lines down in the code you can't really see that. > > > This addition might fix the immediate issue - but it doesn't make > > > life easier for the developers that have to maintain the code. Even > > > less if they're not aware that stuff is namespaced. > > > > If we don't allow it to work this way, then I really don't see the > > point in namespaces at all, which I assume is the point you are trying > > to make. > > Actually, the point that I was trying to make is that we instead of > encouraging this confusion, we should put somewhere in our userland > nameing guidelines that you still would need to provide a prefix to your > (aliased) classnames in order to prevent confusion. But that then > seriously means I see no real good reason still why people want > namespaces with confusing resolving rules (concerning static methods > like Greg points out). > > regards, > Derick > > -- > Derick Rethans > http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
