RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: PEAR::Date broken (Was: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php-src(PHP_5_2) /ext/date php_date.c php_date.h)

That's not exactly how I see it but let's wait for that until we make a proposal. Suffice to say it'd be more like new PHP:Date() or import Date from PHP; new Date(); Anyway, still not final proposal but just sending this so that you know I don't expect to be concatinating strings such as making PHPDate and PHP:Date equivalent. > -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier Hill [mailto:olivier.hill@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 2:50 PM > To: Steph Fox > Cc: Andi Gutmans; Derick Rethans; Edin Kadribasic; Dmitry > Stogov; internals@lists.php.net; Ilia Alshanetsky > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PEAR::Date broken (Was: [PHP-CVS] > cvs: php-src(PHP_5_2) /ext/date php_date.c php_date.h) > > On 7/18/06, Steph Fox <steph@zend.com> wrote: > > I'm probably being dim here, but how is this going to pan > out for BC? > > Either now, or when PHP 6 comes along and we (presumably) go from > > PhpDate to Php::Date? (What am I missing?) > > PHPDate would still exists as an alias for BC. The advantage > of namespace in that matter would be to use a default namespace, ie: > 'using namespace php'. Then you are allowed to use the Date > object as you will without prefixing. > > So in 6.0, PHPDate, PHP::PHPDate and PHP:Date would all be > the same thing. It sounds stupid, but it does not cause any > BC breaks, and any clashes in PHP 5.2 without namespaces. > > Sincerely, > Olivier >