On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi! > > Surely everyone can see the very public ongoing discussions on [EMAIL > PROTECTED] the course of this and last year? >> > > Surely everyone in PHP world reads internals@ and can follow all the > twists and turns of all the discussion. You must be kidding. > I think the same - the noise was high, many people know that "namespaces are coming". I personally tried to follow all of the threads on the namespace discussions @internals in the last years, but honestly - I couldn't. From my personal statistics - almost no developers (as % from the total) outside the "php core team" could/had the time. > > > And of course those same people don't mind a bit if the implementation has >> changed 8 times in the last 6 months, because they understand that they're >> testing a moving target. No? >> > > It wasn't changed in any substantial way even 2 times, let's not > exaggerate. And most things under discussion now - except for removing > functions which 99% of these people don't need anyway - are very special > cases which while exist theoretically are easily avoided in practical code > by following code style guidelines, thus ensuring whatever comes out would > not have critical influence on the code. > I've implemented several projects using namespaces; a complex use - with autoload, file hierarchy corresponding to the namespace one, with namespaced constants and functions, and nothing was broken while I was updating the php5.3-dev, so looks like nothing major (related to ns) was changed. "...are easily avoided in practical code by following code style guidelines" - I think this can be applied to the current implementation and just avoid naming static class and a namespace in with repeating names (in the same position in the hierarchy), to avoid the ambiguity, can it? Last thought - now php5.3 is in alpha release stage - what is the better time to try something new? Change the proposal to whatever you find is best and release it. But posponing it the opportunity will be missed (until the next one of php6 alpha cycle when the situation will be repeated). Steph, I see you point (thank you for the exmplanation), I just think that whatever the solution is will be better to have something in the alpha at least to gather feedback. Someone in the previous messages said that he is affraid that after the release in the alpha of a not-so-good-namespace-implementation there might be public pressure to preserve it. But I think this is not that bad, because means that the developers liked it. In short - use the alpha cycle to propose solutions even if they get scrapped at the end. At least you will know what is not working (wheter for technical or human reasons) and then a better implementation can be proposed for 6. > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ > (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Vesselin Kenashkov developer at www.webstudiobulgaria.com
