Re: Basic Namespace Requirements

Jessie Hernandez schrieb: > I think this is the best solution thus far. If any one of you still feels a > need for constants/functions, PLEASE show me a _valid_ example that cannot > be accomplished by just simply putting the constant/function inside a class > in the namespace. No complaints from me. I try to avoid both since a long time. Functions would be nice, simply for convenience (sometimes one wants to use something so often that a static method just isn't as nice), but I really don't see any need for global constants EXCEPT that supporting everything that's currently OUTSIDE of namespaces would allow to completetly clean it without further work. > If I don't hear of any valid arguments, then I'm going to go ahead and scrap > constants and functions and then concentrate on the final details of the > patch. Did you give the "no namespaces in the ternary" idea a try? Even if this doesn't make it I'd be happy to know if it works. Anyways, +2 for both : and :: OLLi PS: I'm now preparing the final table. We should not stretch this any more ;-) The First subscribers are getting heart attcks from too much mail...