We might even be allowed to import a whole namespace to global and
I doubt it's a good idea. Aside from obvious concern of global space
pollution, there are performance concerns - global imports are very hard
to resolve at compile-time and they are quite hostile to bytecode-caches
(since they
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
And oh the original implementation did not work either. And hey it had
nestng and wasnt't bound to files.
For what it worth, I think there's a link between nesting and not
working :)
Oh and speaking of your wiki again. Your wiki does not list any of the
very
hard l
On Wed, August 15, 2007 7:04 pm, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
While I still think it smells more like "package" than "namespace" I'm
changing my vote to just call it "namespace" and be done with it.
If we really feel the need to add braces support later, we can.
Who knows, maybe even the file-based
> prefix Foo;
> alias Foo:Bar as Quux;
>
If namespaces have to be renamed, then IMHO this proposal is the best so far.
"alias" would also remove confusion from statement like ``import Foo``
because ``alias Foo`` is clearly no-op per se. At least to me ;-)
Regards,
Giedrius
--
PHP Internals - PH
Hi,
Has anyone thought of the keyword "phpspace"?
2007/8/17, M. Sokolewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I've been reading this lengthy discussion and here's a sumup of what I
> found:
> - PHP's implementation is only a part of what most people expect to find
> when they hear "php has namespace suppo
I've been reading this lengthy discussion and here's a sumup of what I
found:
- PHP's implementation is only a part of what most people expect to find
when they hear "php has namespace support"
- PHP's implementation looks a bit like JAVA's package support, and a
bit like many other (differently
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 17:51 -0600, scott lewis wrote:
> On 16 Aug, 2007, at 1737, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
> >> PHP users: "Wait.. WTF? These don't act like namespaces - where
> >> are the braces?"
> >
> > That's like saying "BMW Z4 is not a car - it has only two seats!"
>
> That doesn't cha
On 16 Aug, 2007, at 1737, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
PHP users: "Wait.. WTF? These don't act like namespaces - where
are the braces?"
That's like saying "BMW Z4 is not a car - it has only two seats!"
That doesn't change the fact that that was the very reaction of this
list.
PHP users:
On 16 Aug, 2007, at 1148, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
You can use zendspace. (Gregory) If you want me to get Johannes patch
and convert it to zendspace, just tell me.
So it goes like this:
PHP Group: "Good news everyone! PHP now has zendspaces!".
PHP users: "WTF???"
PHP Group: "It's like a nam
PHP users: "Wait.. WTF? These don't act like namespaces - where are the
braces?"
That's like saying "BMW Z4 is not a car - it has only two seats!"
PHP users: "These act more like... Java packages. Why are they called
namespaces?"
Java packages are namespace implementation, btw.
--
Stanislav
And oh the original implementation did not work either. And hey it had
nestng and wasnt't bound to files.
For what it worth, I think there's a link between nesting and not working :)
Oh and speaking of your wiki again. Your wiki does not list any of the very
hard limitations we have in the cur
Hello Stanislav,
Thursday, August 16, 2007, 7:13:45 PM, you wrote:
>> Read the purpose of both, which restrictions/limitations both have,
>> how are they defined, how are they used, etc and you'll see if the
>> current implementation is more like 'namespace' or 'package'. It's not
>> related to p
So going with existing expectation is good or bad?
Having our implementation match some existing one because the solution
is right for both - good. Imitating existing implementation just because
it exists in some other language - bad (not always, but in this case).
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend
Hello Stanislav,
what the hell are you talking about? We had a namespace implementation and
now we have a new one. One that for a lot of people here smells like
packages. There are no three or more different ones. None of them was ever
accepted or comitted. Actually I doubt that any of them was e
Hello Ralph,
thanks for the very good explanation, but don't expect to get anything
back it is the same arguemnt I tried already - Expectations based on
experience from existing languages. Rather then reachign for the straw of
non existing features in other languages.
best regards
marcus
T
Stas,
Namespace implementations for languages have been around for decades
in one form or another. People use the languages they are used to
developing in to demonstrate their points on how it should work, and
what it should be called when it works a certain way. Its 2007. Given
that we hav
You can use zendspace. (Gregory) If you want me to get Johannes patch
and convert it to zendspace, just tell me.
So it goes like this:
PHP Group: "Good news everyone! PHP now has zendspaces!".
PHP users: "WTF???"
Internally in the Zend framework (in a class definition, for exmaple),
it can use
On 8/16/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Read the purpose of both, which restrictions/limitations both have,
> > how are they defined, how are they used, etc and you'll see if the
> > current implementation is more like 'namespace' or 'package'. It's not
> > related to package
Read the purpose of both, which restrictions/limitations both have,
how are they defined, how are they used, etc and you'll see if the
current implementation is more like 'namespace' or 'package'. It's not
related to package Java, namespace C, def, zendspace of whatever.
That's what I am trying
Hi,
All of the debate over whether this is a true namespace implementation
is in my opinion completely bogus (translate: I think "namespace" is a
fine choice for the reserved word, and "package" is a dangerously
misleading choice), but since there is so much noisy dissent, I have an
alternative pr
Here we come again =\
> > So for you namespaces == C namespaces. Great, since PHP does not have
> > C packages, problem solved, it's not namespaces.
>
> I gave you description of namespaces which clearly states what namespace
> is, and has nothing to do with C or any specific programming lang
On 8/16/07, Sebastian Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/packages.doc.html
Thinking on 'packages' further I think that part of my objection to
use of the term for PHP is that Java provides built-in packages
(java.io etc etc) while PHP does
On 8/16/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So for you namespaces == C namespaces. Great, since PHP does not have
> > C namespaces, problem solved, it's not namespaces.
>
> I gave you description of namespaces which clearly states what namespace
> is, and has nothing to do with C
You asked for a specification of packages in a programming language.
I just pointed you to the specification of packages in Java.
Yes, I know Java implements packages this way. And Perl implements them
other way. And C yet another way.
And PHP has at least three packaging implementations whic
So for you namespaces == C namespaces. Great, since PHP does not have
C packages, problem solved, it's not namespaces.
I gave you description of namespaces which clearly states what namespace
is, and has nothing to do with C or any specific programming language at
all. When I asked what is the
On 8/16/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Java just happens to be the programming language that I associate the
> > most with the programming language feature in question.
>
> So for you packages == Java packages. Great, since PHP does not have
> Java packages, problem solved,
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
> So for you packages == Java packages. Great, since PHP does not have
> Java packages, problem solved, it's not packages.
You asked for a specification of packages in a programming language.
I just pointed you to the specification of packages in Java.
That's all :)
Java just happens to be the programming language that I associate the
most with the programming language feature in question.
So for you packages == Java packages. Great, since PHP does not have
Java packages, problem solved, it's not packages.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
> I wonder why everybody here talks about one and only one language -
> Java.
Java just happens to be the programming language that I associate the
most with the programming language feature in question.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastia
Could you give definition of what is a package, so we could see if it
resembles more of a package or less?
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/packages.doc.html
I wonder why everybody here talks about one and only one language -
Java... It's not like programming languages
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
> Could you give definition of what is a package, so we could see if it
> resembles more of a package or less?
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/packages.doc.html
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG
On Wednesday 15 August 2007, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > If PHP team release in the news:
> >
> > PHP has namespace support!
> > OR
> > PHP has package support!
> >
> > Everyone will understand what does that mean. Those that do not
>
> I wouldn't. And that's not because I'm so dense, but because
This leaves the "Namespace" name available for future development if/as
Which means we officially declare PHP *doesn't* have namespaces (since
we reserve the right to develop it in the future, it's obvious we didn't
do it yet). Why it would be a good thing?
needed (such as if the language w
> That's not true. Even if you discount people that don't care or dare
> enough to write on the list, there were still people who wrote in
> support of keeping "namespace" and they weren't me :)
Okay, I'll dare.
I vote for using the name "Package" for the current implementation.
This leaves the
A software package is that beautiful box you go to the supermarket and
buy the product. A package in programming language is exactly what I
wrote to you.
If by programming language you mean Java, since some people consider
these to be synonymous ;)
No. You mentioned not only once that namesp
On 8/15/07, Guilherme Blanco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/15/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Take a look at this URL and tell me which one PHP does look like:
> > > http://kaistizen.net/Project/CSharpJava/csharp_java.htm#NamespaceVsPackage
> >
> > Neither, actually. But
On 8/15/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Take a look at this URL and tell me which one PHP does look like:
> > http://kaistizen.net/Project/CSharpJava/csharp_java.htm#NamespaceVsPackage
>
> Neither, actually. But it's not about "should we imitate C# or Java".
> It's about what'
Take a look at this URL and tell me which one PHP does look like:
http://kaistizen.net/Project/CSharpJava/csharp_java.htm#NamespaceVsPackage
Neither, actually. But it's not about "should we imitate C# or Java".
It's about what's best for PHP. My opinion is that for PHP would be best
to have na
On 8/15/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > current implementation doesn't have braces; this (consequently) adds a
>
> Ouch, not braces again. What is it with braces that you need them so
> badly? Many languages aren't using the things ever, isn't it a proof
> that there's life o
On 8/15/07, Marc Gear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/15/07, Guilherme Blanco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ZF is using Very_Very_Long_And_Very_Irritating_Class_Names because
> > > there's no choice to do otherwise.
> > If you are creating this patch only to simplify this, I recommend you
> >
On 8/15/07, Guilherme Blanco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ZF is using Very_Very_Long_And_Very_Irritating_Class_Names because
> > there's no choice to do otherwise.
> If you are creating this patch only to simplify this, I recommend you
> to keep it as PHP is currently and just add namespace/packa
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Wikipedia also define the term MVC. But alas, that is a conceptual
definition, not blueprints for implementation.
Who cares about the implementation? It's still MVC. So let's implement
MVC and call it "distributed enterprise messaging" and then let's spend
next 2 ye
On 8/15/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > PHP has namespaced package support.
>
> Yep, that's what I was talking about. "We have namespaces but we call it
> packages because Java does". Eek.
>
Take a look at this URL and tell me which one PHP does look like:
http://kaistizen.ne
PHP has namespaced package support.
Yep, that's what I was talking about. "We have namespaces but we call it
packages because Java does". Eek.
Wikipedia also define the term MVC. But alas, that is a conceptual
definition, not blueprints for implementation.
Who cares about the implementati
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
If PHP team release in the news:
PHP has namespace support!
OR
PHP has package support!
PHP has namespaced package support.
Which, is what the implementation is.
Or worked with different ones enough to understand that "packages" is
used for a zillion of different t
If PHP team release in the news:
PHP has namespace support!
OR
PHP has package support!
Everyone will understand what does that mean. Those that do not
I wouldn't. And that's not because I'm so dense, but because "package"
could mean anything, from next generation autoloader (I myself propose
Stan,
Sorry to disappoint you, but your idea is wrong.
If PHP team release in the news:
PHP has namespace support!
OR
PHP has package support!
Everyone will understand what does that mean. Those that do not
understand are the ones that had never worked with it and can work in
the future (and wi
It's not about the popularity of a word, but the meaning of it. If it
resembles more of a package, let's call it package (as it does
Could you give definition of what is a package, so we could see if it
resembles more of a package or less?
currently, namespace should be nested.. but that's m
On 8/15/07, Olivier Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not about the popularity of a word, but the meaning of it.
A package means a collection of related classes and thats not whats
happening- it is a scoping level for a particular file. A namespace
is a scope which groups related identifiers
Marc,
This is not the right reason for naming it namespace.
Example:
Say I am writing a new language. I want to introduce something similar
to functions. But since OO is popular and sounds nice.. why not call
it method on an object?
People are asking for objects.. I'll just give them objects.
FWIW I am for "namespaces" because:
- the functionality mentioned most often as missing in PHP is
'namespaces'. People want 'namespaces' (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP#Criticism)
- What they really want is no more clashing
classes/functions/variables when they integrate third party apps
(wh
On Tuesday 14 August 2007, Guilherme Blanco wrote:
> Subject: File Struture
> Comments:
> Namespace do not restrict directories (AFAIK)
> Packages restrict directories (each package have a directory with its
> name, like Zend/Cache/File.php)
>
> Question: What is the behavior of PHP in this situat
On 8/14/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OO. And anyway, are we struggling to find excuses here? Can we in no way
> > ever at least try to be consistent in anything we do? That JS argument is an
>
> How "consistent" had acquired a meaning of "doing it my way"? There's
> nothing
On 8/14/07, Guilherme Blanco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not the one that want to put more fire in this entire
> discussion... I'm tired of listening (this is like package or like
> namespace or because my students like it or even that PHP has a unique
> implementation).
>
> I've read all com
OO. And anyway, are we struggling to find excuses here? Can we in no way
ever at least try to be consistent in anything we do? That JS argument is an
How "consistent" had acquired a meaning of "doing it my way"? There's
nothing inconsistent in the name "namespace" and it is very consistent
wit
I am not the one that want to put more fire in this entire
discussion... I'm tired of listening (this is like package or like
namespace or because my students like it or even that PHP has a unique
implementation).
I've read all comments and I think I can give my 2 cents.
Instead of keep talking a
Hello Stanislav,
JS has not much in common with PHP so it shouldn't be used as just another
language to steal ideas from. Actually we are speaking of an OO feature here
and when it comes to that than the two are very different. PHP on the one
hand uses class based OO (like C++ and Java) while JS
Hello Larry,
even if their other main language is JS - they still do not have namespaces
or packages and even if both languages have something. I'd rather confuse
people that only know two languages which are very different anyways than
confusing the probably much bigger group of people that know
The two pages for reference.
http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/spec/chapter_11_packages.html
http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/spec/chapter_12_namespaces.html
The spec's quite nice, although a bit of a nightmare to implement in
parts ;) -
From what I've seen, and I've not been keeping up with a
Tijnema skrev:
Since JavaScript (or ECMAScript) doesn't have namespaces, people that
hear the name namespace for php will either don't know what it is, or
think that it's the same as the C implementation.
ECMAScript 3 aka JavaScript 1.x does not have NS.
ECMAScript 4 aka JavaScript 2 will hav
It isn't C++-like namespaces and it isn't Java-like packages. So it
doesn't really matters what name will be used. It will confuse
newcomers from any language anyway.
I came to PHP from C++ and I find my self confused from time to time
even though I code in PHP for a few years now. There are alrea
On 13/08/07, Tijnema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since JavaScript (or ECMAScript) doesn't have namespaces, people that
> hear the name namespace for php will either don't know what it is, or
> think that it's the same as the C implementation.
>
> Tijnema
I don't know what namespaces look like in
On 8/13/07, Larry Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 13 August 2007, Tijnema wrote:
> > On 8/13/07, Keryx Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Stanislav Malyshev skrev:
> > > > And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because
> > > > it's not c++ ;)
> > >
> > > Exac
On Monday 13 August 2007, Tijnema wrote:
> On 8/13/07, Keryx Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Stanislav Malyshev skrev:
> > > And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because
> > > it's not c++ ;)
> >
> > Exactly. That was my main point. And, as I said,ECMAScript 4 will most
>
On 8/13/07, Keryx Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stanislav Malyshev skrev:
>
> > And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because
> > it's not c++ ;)
>
> Exactly. That was my main point. And, as I said,ECMAScript 4 will most
> probably be the main other language for most ordin
Stanislav Malyshev skrev:
And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because
it's not c++ ;)
Exactly. That was my main point. And, as I said,ECMAScript 4 will most
probably be the main other language for most ordinary PHP developers,
not Java and certainly not C. Especially
66 matches
Mail list logo
