But the longer you wait, the more you're likely to run into implementation
problems.
I think what you meant to say was, 'the longer you wait, the more likely you
foresee the implementation problems'.
I don't know how many users you have. I'm not going to pretend I know how
many users PHP has
>It's a bit ironic that you underestimate PHP's devs with that sort of
>assumption, don't you think?
I do not underestimate anyone.
I just meant that those who will find class visibility "complex" may not use
namespaces at all.
But those who write a full OO code may want full OO features. Not OO t
Hi Franck,
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?
Well, yes, actually.
Class visibility is a common OO concept, that improves the encapsulation
of the code,
2008/10/30 Franck Jasper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A recurrent scheme, on internals, is to underestimate the PHP developer's
> skills
> and needs.
> 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...
>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
