Re: Re: [RFC] Namespace-scoped declares, again

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 09:12, Michał Brzuchalski <michal@brzuchalski.com> wrote: > 1) Packages should be non-hierarchical. Perhaps most simply a package name >> could have exactly two parts, like in composer, so it's clear that there is >> no implied relationship between two packages. >> > > IMO this would create a lot of problems cause name in Composer Package > doesn't reflect used namespace declared in autoload > I'm not saying the package name has to match the composer name, just that the format might be similar; and I explicitly left the question open of how package names would relate to namespaces. It might be sensible to align the package/module name with one or other of the existing two naming schemes, but it's certainly not essential; names in Composer are essentially arbitrary anyway, not visible at all at run-time. On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 09:20, Lynn <kjarli@gmail.com> wrote: > Would it be an idea to first establish the concept of a package within > PHP, rather than deducting it based off a namespace? If packages would be a > thing in PHP, other than just a namespace, package private could also be > implemented as visibility modifier for inheritance and class visibility. > I think there's some confusion here, because establishing the concept of a package as separate from a namespace is exactly what I proposed. Here's a previous message (technically in the same thread, but from 18 months ago) where I also mentioned class visibility: https://externals.io/message/101323#101390 Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]