Re: for the sake of conversation - syntax

On 30 Sep 2008, at 16:57, Nathan Rixham wrote:

Stut wrote:

On 30 Sep 2008, at 14:00, Nathan Rixham wrote:

Stut wrote:

On 29 Sep 2008, at 12:47, Nathan Rixham wrote:

import com.anotherdom.MysqlDbHandler as DbHandlerA; import com.somedom.DbHandler as DbHandlerB; # "as" makes this easier import com.mydom.thatpackage.RssParser; # we don't have to "as"

Would this then be available as RssParser:: or would you need to specify the full name.

just RssParser.. I'd see "import" being a replacement for include import com.mydom.thatpackage.RssParser; same as import '/classpath/com/mydom/thatpackage/RssParser.php';

Where did /classpath come from? Seems to me that's no better than simply using include. I see no value in replacing / with . in the path.

/classpath was purely an illustration; the idea (or my thought behind) replacing / with . and using packages as such; would be do give all of us developers a set standard for file hierarchy / storing classes - think java classes/packages actionscript 3 classes; never any cross over; doesn't matter if 3 different companies all have a /db/handler.php as it's always saved in net/companydomain/packagename/db/handler.php - again back to the classpath; illustrating a set "class root" directory for all classes. /classes/ /modules/ /templates/ etc; but only defining /classes" at this time to me anyways; this form of working in java and actionscript 3 (and some other languages) makes sense and keeps things nice and standard.

Hasn't this already been attempted with PEAR? Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea. And when phar becomes ubiquitous I would love to see this adopted as a standard installation structure for libraries but I can't see it happening, at least not enough for it to change the behaviour of file inclusion. But you can hope I guess.

import net.php.pecl.Tidy into TidySpace; # "into namespace" import org.nicedom.alwaysusethese.*; # why not?

How does PHP work out where these "packages" are?

see above + in this case compiler would loop through the directory 'org/nicedom/alway/usethese/' and include all files (one class per file)

The ability to have multiple namespaces per file leads to issues with the "as" or "into" syntax. Which namespace from that file are you aliasing? This ambiguity is a killer.

internal virtual namespace within that class only; for internal use by that class; non accessible to anything else - to allow for function libraries that aren't in packages / classes and could have conflicting function names. Rather than including a couple of files normally; it makes sense to me to import the contents of these function libs into a temporary internal namespace. I fear I have not the words; but *I* know I mean :p

Consider this... file1.php: package arse {

    class bandit
    {
        ...
    }

} package nipple {

    class clamp
    {
        ...
    }

} file2.php: import file1 as chest; Which package have I aliased as chest in file2.php? This could be solved using "import file1 into chest" which presumably would then give me chest::arse::bandit and chest::nipple::clamp but that's pretty nasty.

public class MyClass # visibility on classes { private $dba:DbHandlerA = new DbHandlerA(); private $dbb:DbHandlerB = new DbHandlerB();

Can't do this. This would require the compilation phase to execute code. This is what constructors were made for.

my mistake I meant: private DbHandlerA $dba = new DbHandlerA(); private DbHandlerB $dbb = new DbHandlerB(); scope type variablename = new class(); obviously calling __construct as per normal.

Except you can't, like I said. Try it. You cannot execute code during variable declaration in classes, you can only initialise to literal values.

indeed you can't; but you can in other languages and this is all entirely functional; tis a feature of as3 that I like :)

This is a pretty fundamental limitation of the way PHP works. I don't see it changing anytime soon, and I'm pretty happy about that. Initialisations like this are only really useful in static classes where you don't have a constructor. Personally I'd not use this ability if it did exist because I prefer to use constructors to group initialisations together but each to their own.

-Stut

-- http://stut.net/