Re: maybe we could all?

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Nathan Rixham <nrixham@gmail.com> wrote: > Eric Butera wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Nathan Rixham <nrixham@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Kyle Terry wrote: >>> >>> and on the other side.. to open things up >>> >>> interface Object { >>> } >>> >>> or >>> >>> abstract class Object { >>> } >>> >>> or >>> >>> class Object { >>> } >>> >>> nothing else for now: >>> >>> reason: >>> to address the current and forseable lack of function(object $obj) in >>> php; >>> in addition to allow future scope for any common to all methods (or any >>> implementation of this to have) >>> >>> i guess first is it a good idea to have any of the above and to address >>> this, then next if so which? >>> >> >> That needs to be prefixed. Or maybe namespaces if you're targeting >> 5.3? It'd suck to have a lot of code using such a thing only to >> become a reserved word. > > agreed, prefixed or namespaced (2 versions preference) > > thought now that should php introduce a superclass all others inherit, then > "ours" should inherit it as well.. so non clashing name for sure. > > that's if we need one..? [imho +1 to one of the above] > > Java has pojo's [1]. Maybe PHP can have popo's. :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POJO