Re: RFC: short and inner classes

Claude, exactly! By using '::' you cannot distinguish between a class and a function. So this is not an option because it leads to a headache. Just my 2 cents On Sun, Mar 16, 2025 at 11:08 PM Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Le 15 mars 2025 à 12:53, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] <imsop.php@rwec.co.uk> a > écrit : > > > > On 14 March 2025 23:37:08 GMT, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> wrote: > > I could get behind ::, but I feel that it introduces human > ambiguity. I > don't believe it would introduce compiler ambiguity, but as a human, I have > to hope the programmers are using a style that makes it obvious what are > inner classes and what are constants/methods. > > > As far as I can see, all four languages I looked up last night (Java, C#, > Swift, Kotlin) use the same syntax for accessing a nested type as for > accessing a property or method, so we'd be following the crowd to use "::" > > That said, I think they all also use that same syntax for namespace (or > equivalent) lookups, so the same argument can be made for "\". (Why PHP > separates those isn't entirely clear to me.) > > > According to my archeological research, it was originally designed to > reuse :: as namespace separator, but it was finally changed to > something > else due to ambiguity between static class elements and namespaced > functions/constants. See > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceissues and > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/backslashnamespaces (where (�~ ��:�]� > =��:: is assumed to be > the namespace separator). > > —Claude > -- Iliya Miroslavov Iliev i.miroslavov@gmail.com