Re: I would like to write an RFC for the addition of an internal keyword

> Setting aside difficulty of implementation, I'm coming around to the idea, though I think > you could simplify it by cordoning off an entire namespace. E.g.: > > A namespace at least two deep (e.g. \A\B\) may be marked 'protected' (by some method > TBD). Classes and functions declared in a protected namespace can only be accessed from methods or > functions inside the same namespace, or in ancestor namespaces. > > E.g., if \Foo\Internal\ is protected, access of its classes/functions must originate from > classes/functions defined in \Foo\, \Foo\Internal\, or \Foo\Internal\*. > > This would allow something like nested classes, but obviously with a lot more flexibility. > > In practice, plugin code sitting in, say, \MyPlugin\ could freely access \Framework\SomeClass, > but not \Framework\Internal\SomeClass. This would solve the problem of internal classes, but these are the least interesting part, imho - The methods and properties are much more interesting, hence my new approach in response to Fabians response, where I drop the concept of internal classes. Please refer to that. > > I see some value there, but there's tons of questions remaining and how to to implement > the damn thing... > > Steve Clay -Jens