On 10.10.2008, at 19:02, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
It should be noted that this proposal builds on Stas previous proposal
after Zendcon
1. Allow braces for namespaces. So, the syntax for namespaces will be:
a) namespace foo;
should be first (non-comment) statement in the file, namespace
extends to the end of the file or next namespace declaration.
b) namespace foo {}
can appear anywhere on the top scope (can not be nested).
Mixing both syntaxes in one file is not possible. The semantics of
both syntaxes will be identical.
2. Simplify resolution order for classes in the namespace:
unqualified names are resolved this way:
a) check "use" list if the name was defined at "use", follow that
resolution
b) if not, the name resolves to namespace::name
Consequence of this will be that for using internal class inside
namespace one would need to refer to it either as ::Foo or do
use ::Foo prior to its usage.
The original 3rd point from the proposal now has the following two
optional solutions (the first one being the originally proposed
approach):
I have two proposals, actually.
1. Leave functions (and constant) alone, i.e. namespace would ignore
that.
1.1 Option: if you define function inside namespace, compiler could
give an error (I don't like this option, but I mention it for the
sake of completeness).
I am -1 on this one.
2. Leave functions/constants as they are now, and add the following
syntax:
Class::Name->method()
for calling static methods (and referring to class constants), so
that there would be a way to disambiguate calls in (rare, IMHO)
situations where ambiguity may arise.
I am +0.5(*) on this one. I dont like the fact that this means that
code needs to be migrated before being unambiguous, so I preferred the
idea of having a different separator between namespaces and its
members, but this way there is at least a solution available.
(*) There is a condition under which I would be +1 for the syntax. If
in PHP6 we can make the old syntax (A::foo() and A::FOO) raise an
E_STRICT (I dont think we ever want to remove it, so E_DEPRECATED
would not be the right choice), when its being used to reference class
members instead of namespace elements. If I understand the namespace
resolution rules properly, we check namespaces first before checking
for a class with the same name. So with the E_STRICT in place,
developers could protect themselves perfectly from accidental
ambiguities (if they were to ever introduce a namespace with the same
name as a class with a constant or static method that is referenced
using the double colon) and effectively migrate to the new syntax
(which I think is nicer anyways, than the original syntax).
---
Barring any new major findings I ask everybody to cast their vote by
Thursday evening PST. Since Dmitry was not happy with his proposal we
are left with:
1) Rip them out
2) Keep as is
3) Stas proposal with functions/constants ignored
4) Stas proposal with "->" optionally allowed to resolve ambiguities
If we have a decision by Thursday evening we could hopefully do an
alpha3 by Thursday the following week, although I would want any
namespace to be documented before (or closely around) the release of
alpha3. Stas said that he would be willing to update the README in a
timely manner after finishing a patch, in case we go for 3) or 4). I
hope we can also find the time to transfer any changes to docbook
quickly after this.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
