Re: Re: namespace issues

Brian Moon wrote: >>> 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? >> >> >> Figuring that you arrived at the same conclusion nearly three years ago >> regarding my namespace patch, and I also agreed that only classes should >> be allowed inside namespaces >> (http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=113320797607651&w=2), I am +1 for >> this proposal. > > <rant> > And the congregation wept. Man, how much more bastard ass step child do > functions have to become? Its not bad enough that the OOP stuff is > littered with every little overly complicated bell and whistle. Now > functions are to be left behind with this feature? Geez people. Get > over your OOP arrogance. > </rant> Hi Brian, This is a bit amusing to read if one takes a step back :). You should know that there is quite a wide variety of opinions amongst internals developers about the importance of functions vs. classes. One interesting point is that none of the internals developers I know who use functions primarily seem to care about or want namespaces, so they have been almost completely silent on implementation details. To all: your input is heard, and those who actually will do the committing are working very, very hard both on and off list to try to find a solution that will satisfy the largest number of developers. Greg