Re: On Namespaces...

> I don't see how it could change in the future, but that's > just my 2c :) Thanks, thats all I was really looking for. The status of the terms, cause if they're not being reserved then I would like to continue using them -- at my own risk. As Marcus points out, its might not be the best idea to implement function/classes with keyword names from other languages but the terms best describe my problem. Maybe I'll prefix them. EOT -Justin "Zeev Suraski" <zeev@zend.com> wrote in message news:5.1.0.14.2.20040817184242.04cd02f0@localhost... > At 21:06 16/08/2004, Marcus Boerger wrote: > >Hello Justin, > > > >Monday, August 16, 2004, 4:08:46 PM, you wrote: > > > > > Zeev, > > > > > I too have been searching the archives for subjects on 'namespace' and > > found > > > allot of back and forth opinions on it but not a real summary about its > > > conclusion. Basically, I have allot of code at work still in php4 that that > > > uses it own class importing mechanism than just include|require[_once] > > > dubbed 'Namespace' with static method Namespace::import(). I'm just > > > wondering if 'namespace' and 'import' is reserved for future use before I > > > port all my code to php5. > > > >There's a good chance that later PHP versions (maybe 5.2 or 6 or whatever) > >have something like namespaces or packages which require at least the > >keyword 'import'. That's an example for the reason i never use names that > >are used as keywords in other languages. > > FWIW, I have no idea what Marcus is talking about :) > The reasons that brought us to remove namespaces in the first place are > conceptual, so I don't see how it could change in the future, but that's > just my 2c :) > > Justin - unfortunately you'd have to read quite a few threads on the > mailing list (the engine2 one) in order to understand why namespaces were > removed, because unlike most 'standard' problems, this one is mostly > conceptual, rather than technical. The short version of the story is that > 'import' was perceived as something very different by different people - > and it appeared to only be useful if implemented in a way that completely > contradicts the 'spirit' of PHP (i.e., it's inconsistent with the way > include/require behave, for instance). > > A good (albeit long) thread to start with would be > http://www.zend.com/lists/engine2/200304/msg00164.html. > > Zeev