Enough with the nitpicking! It's almost (what timezones are you in?)
weekend, have a beer you guys! ;)
Ron
""Oliver Grätz"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jani Taskinen schrieb:
>>>This provided we support nested namespaces. Do we need them?
>>>
>>>JT>>No,
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
>>This provided we support nested namespaces. Do we need them?
>>
>>JT>>No, we don't need no stinking namespaces. We already have prefixes. :)
>>
>>Did I write the word "nested" in invisible font? Funny, I didn't know my
>>mail client supports it.
>
>Yes, but you don'
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
JT>>> This provided we support nested namespaces. Do we need them?
JT>>
JT>>No, we don't need no stinking namespaces. We already have prefixes. :)
Did I write the word "nested" in invisible font? Funny, I didn't know my
mail client supports it.
JT>>> This provided we support nested namespaces. Do we need them?
JT>>
JT>>No, we don't need no stinking namespaces. We already have prefixes. :)
Did I write the word "nested" in invisible font? Funny, I didn't know my
mail client supports it.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
BdB>>The above can either mean "call function c in namespace b under
BdB>>namespace a" or "call static method c of class b under namespace a".
BdB>>Since this cannot be determined, "::" cannot be used.
This provided we support nested namespaces. Do
> BdB>>The above can either mean "call function c in namespace b under
> BdB>>namespace a" or "call static method c of class b under namespace a".
> BdB>>Since this cannot be determined, "::" cannot be used.
>
> This provided we support nested namespaces. Do we need them?
Nested namespaces are imp
Lukas Smith schrieb:
> not sure if phpnamespaces.org is a wise choice for a site that publishes
> prepatched versions of php (see the php license) ..
If I read the mails there correctly this issue is already being worked upon.
> it seems like there is a mailinglist there. while obviously the
>
Furthermore. The problem with echo 'a::b::c();' would only
occur if the code structure would be like this:
namespace a {
namespace b {
function c() { }
}
class b {
function c() { }
}
}
However, should it be legal to give a class the same name as
a namespace that's in the same s
BdB>>The above can either mean "call function c in namespace b under
BdB>>namespace a" or "call static method c of class b under namespace a".
BdB>>Since this cannot be determined, "::" cannot be used.
This provided we support nested namespaces. Do we need them?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Prod
Hi,
not sure if phpnamespaces.org is a wise choice for a site that publishes
prepatched versions of php (see the php license) ..
it seems like there is a mailinglist there. while obviously the
namespace topic also relates to this list, I think it would be a good
idea if people not in tune wi
Bart de Boer wrote:
What was the argument against '::' again?
Jessie Hernandez wrote:
Found it...
BTW, "::" is out the question (yes, I did try it). It created ambiguity
in the case of calling a function in a namespace and calling a method of
a class in a namespace:
echo a::b::c();
The ab
What was the argument against '::' again?
Jessie Hernandez wrote:
Oliver,
Like I mentioned in another thread, ":" cannot be used, even if only
classes are allowed in namespaces. Look at this example:
$x = $y?a:b::c();
The above can be parsed either as the first argument being "the result
Oliver,
Like I mentioned in another thread, ":" cannot be used, even if only
classes are allowed in namespaces. Look at this example:
$x = $y?a:b::c();
The above can be parsed either as the first argument being "the result
of method c of class b in namespace a" or the first argument being "t
Roman Ivanov schrieb:
> Radical idea:
> 1) Use :.
> 2) Make : to work like ::.
> 3) Make : to work like ->.
> 4) But no one will agree to it anyway, so I stop here.
Nope. I agree ;-)
But that train has already left.
(although I still think : could be made to work for the namespaces)
OLLi
--
PHP
I hate the idea of voting for features, but since it might have some
affect on the language, I will add my opinion to the heap.
::: - Bad, because it's three characters.
: - Good, because it's one character, and it does not look like
something else.
\ - It's one character, but it looks like div
David Zülke wrote:
-> is crap because it is used for accessing object methods and
properties.
BS. Java uses dot to separate everything, and it works perfectly fine.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hartmut Holzgraefe schrieb:
> wouldn't that create an amiguity with
>
>T_LESS_THAN T_UNARY_MINUS
>
> like in
>
>if (SOME_CONSTANT<-SOME_OTHER_CONSTANT)
>
> so that we are back to the same problem we alread have with ':'?
Yes we do.
Congratulations, you are the 100th contributer statin
Hadn't thought about that one... Thank you for the comment.
I now think '\' is the best choice.
On 11/27/05, Lorenzo Alberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Matt Friedman wrote:
> > Namespace <:: ClassName
> > or
> > Namespace <- ClassName
> > or
> > Namespace <: ClassName
> >
> > Unless I'm miss
Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
+1 for <- here. It makes namespace hierarchies resemble diagrams of the
same hierarchies (like inheritance in UML). It also visually makes
sense, isn't hard to type, and doesn't look like a smiley (like :> etc).
wouldn't that create an amiguity with
T_LESS_THAN T
SC>>Changed that to Shalosh (as apparently the -ayim means "twice" (as in
SC>>PAAM=2, AYIM=twice, NEKUDOT=dot, AYIM=twice)).
PAAM actually means "once" :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
> Sean reckons that it's Shaloshayim
> (http://blog.phpdoc.info/archives/27-+1-for-Shaloshayim-Nekudotayim.html):
>
> T_SHALOSHAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM
Changed that to Shalosh (as apparently the -ayim means "twice" (as in
PAAM=2, AYIM=twice, NEKUDOT=dot, AYIM=twice)).
Not that I claim to know very much
Matt Friedman wrote:
Namespace <:: ClassName
or
Namespace <- ClassName
or
Namespace <: ClassName
Unless I'm missing something these symbols should not conflict with
other ones.
I'm not sure if someone already mentioned it,
but "<-" is not acceptable, since it means
"less than the opposite of"
Hello Jacques,
can we name it T_WTF_COLON
Sunday, November 27, 2005, 12:05:19 PM, you wrote:
> Sara Golemon wrote:
>> For the record, I vote for :::
>> T_??_NEKUDOTAYIM
>> (Sorry, couldn't find a transliteration of "triple")
>>
> Sean reckons that it's Shaloshayim
> (http://blog.phpdoc
Sara Golemon wrote:
> For the record, I vote for :::
> T_מְשֻׁלָּשׁ_NEKUDOTAYIM
> (Sorry, couldn't find a transliteration of "triple")
>
Sean reckons that it's Shaloshayim
(http://blog.phpdoc.info/archives/27-+1-for-Shaloshayim-Nekudotayim.html):
T_SHALOSHAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM
Regards
--jm
> -Sara
>
>
Oliver Grätz wrote:
> OK, you requested for it! *g*
>
> OLLi
>
>
>
>
> Namespace Operators
>
> Name
Mike Robinson wrote:
> They all look horrible.
> The idea of namespaces scrapped altogether is a good solution. :)
>
> Best,
>
> Mike Robinson
>
Namespaces would be quite useful when using PEAR classes and custom
classes where you require certain functionality from say a PEAR::Date
and Derick's
MCK>>The -> suggestion if practicable seems the most intuitively correct
MCK>>to me.
Yes, with one exception that this already has a meaning and it has nothing
to do with namespaces.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115
-
Hi Sara,
Sara Golemon wrote:
For the record, I vote for :::
T_מְשֻׁלָּשׁ_NEKUDOTAYIM
(Sorry, couldn't find a transliteration of "triple")
-Sara
I'll call it T_JESSIEYIM_NEKUDONAMESPACE ;-) !
Regards,
Jessie
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: ht
Sorry, did not notice you put a special meaning to +2, +1, etc. You can
put a +2 for me for ":" and a +1 for ":::".
Anyways, I'm tired of discussing this. I'm going to stick to ::: for
now, and if constants are not wanted, I'll then go with ":". I have to
work on some minor details of the patc
For the record, I vote for :::
T_מְשֻׁלָּשׁ_NEKUDOTAYIM
(Sorry, couldn't find a transliteration of "triple")
-Sara
OK, I'll update the table. One moment...
I leave the +2 in and have added a -2 , which I didn't use as I didn't
want to pre-vote anyones comments so clearly. There should be 5 non-
They all look horrible.
The idea of namespaces scrapped altogether is a good solution. :)
Best,
Mike Robinson
David Zülke wrote:
> If we rule out :::, it should be <- instead.
>
> Foo:>bar:>Baz::getTest()->foo();
>
> vs
>
> Foo<-bar<-Baz::getTest()->foo();
>
> The latter looks better to m
Quite Right, stupid on my part, sorry.
On 11/26/05, Oliver Grätz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The original post HAS an attachment, but here you go ;-)
>
> OLLi
>
>
> First update:
>
> Namespace Operators
>
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 21:41 -0500, Nicolas Bérard Nault wrote:
> +2 to <-, which, in my humble opinion, is more logic than anything else that
> was proposed (as mentionned earlier, it creates a sort of "hierachy").
Hmm, is it really necessary to vote for separators which aren't remotely
technicall
Could I kindly get the grid as an attachment? Gmail messed up the formatting.
On 11/26/05, Eric Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If : is still a viable solution, i'd much rather see that used :P
>
> -- Eric
> --
> Eric Coleman
>
> On Nov 26, 2005, at 9:21 PM, Jessie Hernandez wrote:
>
> > Grea
+2 to <-, which, in my humble opinion, is more logic than anything else that
was proposed (as mentionned earlier, it creates a sort of "hierachy").
\ and %% just seem too extravagant... -2 to them I guess.
Just my 2 cents.
On 11/26/05, Oliver Grätz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, I'll update
If : is still a viable solution, i'd much rather see that used :P
-- Eric
--
Eric Coleman
On Nov 26, 2005, at 9:21 PM, Jessie Hernandez wrote:
Great work, Oliver! I personally also add a +1 for ":", with the
whitespace restriction in the ternary operator (or just removing
namespace const
OK, I'll update the table. One moment...
I leave the +2 in and have added a -2 , which I didn't use as I didn't
want to pre-vote anyones comments so clearly. There should be 5 non-zero
values (as in ++/+/o/-/--, which is used in project-portfolio-planning),
as one can put some weighting into the an
Great work, Oliver! I personally also add a +1 for ":", with the
whitespace restriction in the ternary operator (or just removing
namespace constants).
I would also add another restriction: you cannot more than one point
for/against (so no +2's or -2's, etc.). It just doesn't make sense (I
mi
OK, you requested for it! *g*
OLLi
Namespace Operators
Name |s| %% | : | ::: | ::< | :< | <- | :> | \ | -> |
\\ | <:: | <: | .. | | | |
(This is my first post to this list and of course just my opinion.)
> Foo%%bar%%Baz::getTest()->foo();
>
> Yes, it is blocky, as is the :: for class scopes.
But it is the same width as *six* colons. I agree that : should be
used even if it means requiring whitespace in some obscure case,
mainly b
David Zülke schrieb:
> Foo:>bar:>Baz::getTest()->foo();
> Foo<-bar<-Baz::getTest()->foo();
> Foo:::bar:::Baz::getTest()->foo();
OK, for completeness:
Foo%%bar%%Baz::getTest()->foo();
Yes, it is blocky, as is the :: for class scopes.
But it's very clear to see where the namespaces are and where t
Jasper Bryant-Greene schrieb:
> Oliver Grätz wrote:
>
>>Oliver Grätz schrieb:
>>
>>> :><::<-<:..
>>
>>Whoops, forgot to add "%%"
>>
>
>
> +1 for <- here. It makes namespace hierarchies resemble diagrams of the
> same hierarchies (like inheritance in UML). It also visually make
This is getting kind of fun to read since we have unicode, perhaps we
should use one of those characters ;) - I'm sure I can find a chinese
character that means namespace for it ;)
define('foo',1);define('bar',2);var_dump(foo<-bar);
personally I would prefer ":" if it is at all feasible,
(chang
On 11/26/05, David Zülke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we rule out :::, it should be <- instead.
I'd hate to see it be <-, looks too much like ->.
Foo<-bar<-Baz::getTest()->foo();
but I agree that ::: should be ruled out all together, its too similar to ::.
I'd almost rather have %% over <-, a
If we rule out :::, it should be <- instead.
Foo:>bar:>Baz::getTest()->foo();
vs
Foo<-bar<-Baz::getTest()->foo();
The latter looks better to me. I'd still prefer
Foo:::bar:::Baz::getTest()->foo();
though.
- David
Am 27.11.2005 um 01:28 schrieb Eric Coleman:
I'd have to vote for either <
I'd have to vote for either <- or :>. I perfer the later.
\ is kinda crappy. Looks weird, as does %%. Looks like a mess.
--
Eric Coleman
On Nov 26, 2005, at 7:17 PM, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
Oliver Grätz wrote:
Oliver Grätz schrieb:
:><::<-<:..
Whoops, forgot t
Oliver Grätz wrote:
Oliver Grätz schrieb:
:><::<-<:..
Whoops, forgot to add "%%"
+1 for <- here. It makes namespace hierarchies resemble diagrams of the
same hierarchies (like inheritance in UML). It also visually makes
sense, isn't hard to type, and doesn't look like a
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 00:58 +0100, Oliver Grätz wrote:
> - looks OK (Pear%%Date)
You're kidding, right? %% looks nothing but blocky and messy to my human
eyes, and the resemblance to :: stretches the word "tenuous" to its
limit.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscrib
Oliver Grätz schrieb:
> Oliver Grätz schrieb:
>
>> :><::<-<:..
>
>
> Whoops, forgot to add "%%"
I really like "%%":
- not on the PHP operators list
- not on the "Periodic table"
- no associations in my mind other than LaTeX comments
- just two characters
- loosely resembles t
On 27.11.2005 0:40 Uhr, Oliver Grätz wrote:
> Now some requirements:
>
> - needs to work without collisions in the parser
> (seems to kill ":","::","->")
> - should be easily distinguishable from other, similar operators
> (seems to kill ":::")
> - at least one person on earth should like i
Oliver Grätz schrieb:
>:><::<-<:..
Whoops, forgot to add "%%"
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Jessie Hernandez schrieb:
> So far, I have these possibilites:
>
> :::
> :>
> <::
> <-
> <:
OK, now that Marcus threw a PostToLongException('bla'), I'd love to get
back to this.
Other suggestions were
: ::->.. \
Now some requirements:
- needs to work without col
The proposal is just stupid. It cannot get any more confusing and
inconsistent.
Am 26.11.2005 um 23:29 schrieb Matthew C. Kavanagh:
Don't let the identifiers collide, then.
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 23:23 +0100, David Zülke wrote:
-> is crap because it is used for accessing object methods and
Hello Stanislav,
i know that language it is call ed PerlHyPer :-)
marcus
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 11:06:17 PM, you wrote:
MF>>>Unless I'm missing something these symbols should not conflict with
MF>>>other ones. They also have more a PHP "feel".
> I wonder what "PHP feel" is in bunch of
Don't let the identifiers collide, then.
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 23:23 +0100, David Zülke wrote:
> -> is crap because it is used for accessing object methods and
> properties. Come on, guys. It is not that difficult. Think before you
> write.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing L
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Matt,
bla!
LOL!
--
Jessie
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Matt,
bla!
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 10:19:18 PM, you wrote:
> Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
> have a nice idea for the namespace separator idea. Sorry to barge in
> on your conversation but I think the following has value.
> What about somethin
-> is crap because it is used for accessing object methods and
properties. Come on, guys. It is not that difficult. Think before you
write.
- David
Am 26.11.2005 um 23:16 schrieb Matthew C. Kavanagh:
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 00:06 +0200, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
I wonder what "PHP feel" is
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 00:06 +0200, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> I wonder what "PHP feel" is in bunch of special symbols with meaning
> entirely obscure to non-initiated... Why not {@ or <* then? They are nice
> ASCII art too. And there are so many combinations of two special symbols,
> let's find
MF>>Unless I'm missing something these symbols should not conflict with
MF>>other ones. They also have more a PHP "feel".
I wonder what "PHP feel" is in bunch of special symbols with meaning
entirely obscure to non-initiated... Why not {@ or <* then? They are nice
ASCII art too. And there are so
::: is best. :> and <: look like my favorite smilies. No way I could
ever use them in code ;)
- David
Am 26.11.2005 um 22:39 schrieb Jessie Hernandez:
Hi Mat,
Matt Friedman wrote:
Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
have a nice idea for the namespace separ
Hi Mat,
Matt Friedman wrote:
Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
have a nice idea for the namespace separator idea. Sorry to barge in
on your conversation but I think the following has value.
What about something like <- or <:: or even just <:
It makes sense to
Hi, I've been following your conversations all day and think I might
have a nice idea for the namespace separator idea. Sorry to barge in
on your conversation but I think the following has value.
What about something like <- or <:: or even just <:
It makes sense to me because a namespace is akin
I personally don't like any of these, but I just thought of this one:
"%%". Don't think it'll cause any problems at all, and look at the code:
What do you think? ":::" is more intuitive for me, but "%%" is an
acceptable alternative...
Regards,
Jessie
Greg Beaver wrote:
Hi all,
I have
64 matches
Mail list logo
