Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]

Hi, All of the debate over whether this is a true namespace implementation is in my opinion completely bogus (translate: I think "namespace" is a fine choice for the reserved word, and "package" is a dangerously misleading choice), but since there is so much noisy dissent, I have an alternative proposal I'd like to float: How about using the keyword "prefix" or "nameprefix" instead of "namespace"? This will be clearer and can be easily defined with 2 sentences similar to the original proposal: "All class and function names inside the file are automatically prefixed with the (prefix|nameprefix) name. In other files, classes and functions can be imported with different names (aliases) to eliminate naming conflicts or reduce typing needed." I quote from the original "Simple Namespace Proposal" message by Dmitry: From the beginning: > Main assumption of the model is that the problem that we are to solve is the > problem of the very long class names in PHP libraries. We would not attempt > to take autoloader's job or create packaging model - only make names > manageable. From the middle: > Namespace definition does the following: > All class and function names inside are automatically prefixed with > namespace name. As stated, because this proposal *only* defines a prefix for functions and class names, it is not a packaging model. All package models in existence define some kind of self-contained entity that groups related *files* and their contents together in a way that allows them to be "packaged" into a single thing, like a jar, a PEAR .tgz, or a .phar file. This proposal does none of these things. Simply because the prefix is defined per-file does not a package make. By the same logic, using ".php" at the end of a file or ".dat" at the end of a file creates special packages of php or dat information, because the extension applies to the whole file at once. Simply defining the contents of a file does not imply any organization whatsoever. What the original proposal *does* do is provide a namespace prefix - it defines a scope within which all names have a special prefix. This is not rocket science. <rant>On a personal note, if you feel you must reply to this thread further, please follow this checklist: 1) is anything I am saying bring a new idea to the debate? 2) is there a patch that converts my new idea into a reality attached to the message? If you can't answer "yes" to either of these, please go immediately to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.</rant> Thank you to Dmitry for this much-needed idea. Thanks, Greg