>Hello Ron, > > we agreed long ago on a very easy scheme, there shall only be is-a and >public classes.
Do you really think it makes the scheme "easier" to allow for public classes only? Class visibility is a common OO concept, that improves the encapsulation of the code, and which, I'm afraid of it, will be requested again in the future, like typed return values and typed properties. > we agreed long ago on a very easy scheme A recurrent scheme, on internals, is to underestimate the PHP developer's skills and needs. Not only is this behaviour a bit upsetting for those who want to use PHP seriously, but in the long run, this may lead to insufficient specifications, or arguable conception choices. When PHP5 was designed, it was probably thought that a specific resolution operator would make it "easier" for a "PHP developer" to distinguish between static and non-static calls... and so "::" was introduced, in spite of the fact that "::" is for long a namespace separator in various languages. And no namespaces were added to the language by that time, because it was probably considered that a "PHP developer" would never need such a thing... even though namespaces have existed for long in many OO languages. Franck -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
