Hi Travis,
Am Donnerstag, den 03.07.2008, 16:31 -0500 schrieb Travis Swicegood:
* Completely bike shedding, but does Recursive need its own level?
RecursiveArray reads better than having Array at two different levels
to me.
Alright, I will change that.
* Again, bike shedding, but I like
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Lars Strojny wrote:
RFC: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces-for-internal-classes
I'd say this is a BIG no-no. PHP owns the top-level namespace. Why make
things harder? And on top of that, you're suggesting just to break code
for no good reason in Backwards compatibility
Hi Derick,
Am Freitag, den 04.07.2008, 10:14 +0200 schrieb Derick Rethans:
I'd say this is a BIG no-no. PHP owns the top-level namespace. Why
make things harder? And on top of that, you're suggesting just to
break code for no good reason in Backwards compatibility and other
constraints.
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Lars Strojny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 03.07.2008, 16:31 -0500 schrieb Travis Swicegood:
* Completely bike shedding, but does Recursive need its own level?
RecursiveArray reads better than having Array at two different levels
to me.
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 10:28 +0200, Lars Strojny wrote:
Hi Derick,
Am Freitag, den 04.07.2008, 10:14 +0200 schrieb Derick Rethans:
I'd say this is a BIG no-no. PHP owns the top-level namespace. Why
make things harder? And on top of that, you're suggesting just to
break code for no good
Hi Johannes,
Am Freitag, den 04.07.2008, 11:15 +0200 schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
[...]
That's not entirely true, there are minor BC breaks: Let's say Bar is an
alias for Foo::Bar. now to $r = new ReflectionClass('Bar'); echo
$r-getName(); and you'll get 'Foo::Bar' as that's the name in the CE,
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 11:26 +0200, Lars Strojny wrote:
Am Freitag, den 04.07.2008, 11:15 +0200 schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
[...]
That's not entirely true, there are minor BC breaks: Let's say Bar is an
alias for Foo::Bar. now to $r = new ReflectionClass('Bar'); echo
$r-getName(); and
Hi Johannes,
Am Freitag, den 04.07.2008, 13:56 +0200 schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
[...]
Depends ;-)
Main point: There's no such thing as no BC break. So we have to decide
whether that BC break (hoping it's the only one) is less a problem than
having an inconsistent naming scheme. (... wait -
Hi,
a big -1 from me on the namings
I really see no point in having:
use Spl::Exception;
throw new Logic;
It makes the code hard to understand with no reason.
IMO a single SPL namespace is enough, and it solves the naming
problems we have with SPL.
Regards
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:31 PM,
Hi Etienne,
Am Freitag, den 04.07.2008, 14:50 +0200 schrieb Etienne Kneuss:
[...]
a big -1 from me on the namings
I really see no point in having:
use Spl::Exception;
throw new Logic;
use Spl::Exception::Logic as LogicException;
throw new LogicException();
Besides that, what we should
Hi,
but there is already a structure in the namings of classes, and it's
already documented:
Iterators and Exceptions are however simply postfixed with
Iterator and Exception. Examples:
IMO this rule should still be valid in namespaces so I'd group
iterators along with what they iterates on,
On Friday 04 July 2008 7:31:44 am Lars Strojny wrote:
Hi Johannes,
Alright, that's what my RFC was aiming for. Maybe from the wrong
direction. I wanted to do it exemplary for SPL and go on further for all
the other extensions we bundle in core. Namespacing everything is the
only way to
Hello everbody,
one thing on my mind is the current naming of our internal classes. I
could say the same for our functions but no, I don't have plans to save
the universe, saving the world should be enough for now. So I've tried
to dig through the ext/spl-package as an example how to implement
Hey Lars;
On Jul 3, 2008, at 4:07 AM, Lars Strojny wrote:
one thing on my mind is the current naming of our internal classes. I
could say the same for our functions but no, I don't have plans to
save
the universe, saving the world should be enough for now. So I've tried
to dig through the
14 matches
Mail list logo
