I would definitely have to agree. I would much prefer to have a minimal solution implemented and then to iterate over it in the future than to try to figure out the perfect implementation the first time. Just from watching where the thread about namespaces has gone, I would definitely have to say that we have set the expectation for ourselves that the first implementation will be the only one and therefore has to be perfect. And that's hard to live up to :)
Ilia On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Alexey Zakhlestin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Greg Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I have to respectfully disagree with both of you: > > > > Stas: choosing an imperfect solution when a better one already exists is > > just plain stupid, and isn't what you want *or* what you suggested - the > > solution you, Liz, Marcus and Andi proposed is not imperfect, it is > > consistent, robust and far better than the existing CVS implementation > > of namespaces. Don't sell yourself so short! :) > > > > Steph: the limited solution proposed by Stas and company (removing > > functions [and I would add constants]/fixing name resolution) *is* a > > basic solution that can be expanded on. I outlined the steps in my > > reply. It's the best solution to the problem, not an imperfect one. A > > namespace solution that works brilliantly for classes will satisfy at > > least 2/3 of the users who want it. > > I guess, I am in these 2/3's. Limited solution (with a promise to > extend it later) would work for me, perfectly. > > -- > Alexey Zakhlestin > http://blog.milkfarmsoft.com/ > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
