Re: [RFC] Libsodium (bump)

On 3/17/2016 4:04 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > The only problem with this is "It looks inconsistent with existing > module functions". We may consider how we are going to use namespaces > for extensions in general. I like the idea > > \ModuleName\function_name > > for all extension functions, indeed. > > Question is whether we should use something like > "\PHP\ModuleName\function_name" or "\ModuleName\function_name". I'm > not sure which one is better in the long run. > > I think that this is not necessary. The existing system does not seem to pose any problems, changing the coding standard now only creates a mixture. There are still many extension who are not even in conformance with the coding standard and such a change would make it even worse. Let's first try to clean things up; which is already a super hard task because many people are completely against, as we've seen it in the *var* deprecation thread. That being said, *\PHP\ModuleName\function_name* is a very bad choice for multiple reasons: 1. PHP already has its reserved namespace, the global one *\*. 2. Is it *\PHP* or *\Php*? This opens a huge can of worms. And even if it is *\ModuleName\function_name*: 3. The amount of *use* statements will explode and the situation becomes equal to the one we had in the past with the millions of *require(_once)* lines in the preamble of each file. It requires more management on the userland side. TL;DR the current system works just fine so why change? Just because it is sexy right now? Will it be sexy in 10 years? -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc