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

From:	Rasmus Lerdorf	Date:	Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:10:21 +0000
Subject:	Re: Re: PEAR::Date broken (Was: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php-src(PHP_5_2) /ext/date php_date.c php_date.h)
References:	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11	Groups:	php.internals
Request:	Send a blank email to internals+get-24628@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message

Steph Fox wrote:

Regardless, we know it's coming and we know it'll have namespacing support. If we do PHPDateTime right now we'll have PHP::PHPDateTime later, and that's just wonky.
Why would it be PHP::PHPDateTime ? An extra alias here isn't going to hurt very much. We are not talking about hundreds of classes. At this point we are talking about one with a very common short name.
John's right, because PHP::PHPDateTime would have to become acceptable syntax. Not the _only available_ syntax, but an acceptable one.

I don't see why that is necessarily the case. We can simply decide that it isn't.