Re: namespaces and alpha3

Ron Rademaker wrote:

Lester Caine wrote:

Derick Rethans wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

At this point I guess we have the choice between: 1) rip them out 2) status quo 3) Stas proposal 4) Dmitrys proposal Again I hope that Stas/Dmitry will give us an insight about their proposals, though Stas proposal might or might not see any changes.

Stas wrote up an RFC about the two proposals: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceref Now I finally figured out what the two things are without having to real a gazillion pointless posts it makes it easier to formulate my point of view.

From my own point of view - which may well be flawed - I AM still seeing 'namespace' as a stepping stone to better code, but in order to achieve that *I* am thinking that legacy sections get wrapped in a namespace while other sections are developed. To that end, wrapping legacy functions and constant does seem essential SHORT TERM, so not having them would seem to me to make take-up of the concept hamstrung?

What would be the advantage of wrapping legacy functions in a namespace over wrapping them into a class as static functions?

THAT is probably why I am asking the question? And may well be key to my understanding why converting non OO code into OO code in PHP is so problematic. When I was coding in CC++ more heavily libraries did not need to be objects and the 'namespace' just wrapped the code OR the code was built as an object. That is what I understand by a namespace, so perhaps I do not understand why leaving out functions and constants is acceptable :(

Am I being totally out of line with that idea? Is there a way to achieve the same result with the current offering?

-- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php