Re: namespace issues

Sounds fantastic to me. Not a fan of the {} namespaces but each to their own. On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote: > Hi! > > On the ZendCon, we (Marcus, Elizabeth, Andi and myself) had a talk about > what we'd like to do with namespaces, and we arrived at the following > conclusions, which we propose to implement in 5.3: > > 1. Allow braces for namespaces. So, the syntax for namespaces will be: > a) namespace foo; > should be first (non-comment) statement in the file, namespace extends to > the end of the file or next namespace declaration. > b) namespace foo {} > can appear anywhere on the top scope (can not be nested). > Mixing both syntaxes in one file is not possible. The semantics of both > syntaxes will be identical. > > 2. Simplify resolution order for classes in the namespace: unqualified names > are resolved this way: > a) check "use" list if the name was defined at "use", follow that > resolution > b) if not, the name resolves to namespace::name > Consequence of this will be that for using internal class inside namespace > one would need to refer to it either as ::Foo or do use ::Foo prior to its > usage. > > 3. Functions will not be allowed inside namespaces. We arrived to conclusion > that they are much more trouble than they're worth, and summarily we would > be better off without them. Most of the functionality could be easily > achieved using static class methods, and the rest may be emulated with > variable function names, etc. > > Comments? > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect > stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ > (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >