On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 9:25 AM Pierre <pierre-...@processus.org> wrote: > > Le 11/02/2021 à 18:48, Chase Peeler a écrit : > > I think Spl makes sense (there might be a debate over whether it should be > > Spl or SPL though). How feasible is it to create generate a deprecation > > notice when the global version is used? I assume the hope is to eventually > > move away from using those, and I don't think that's a horrible BC break > > given that users have enough time to prepare for it. > > Hello, > > For what it worth, I think that Spl is both ugly to read (yes, I like > things not only to be semantic, but elegant as well) and hard to type on > my keyboard (OK subjective point here, both are actually). > > "Spl" does mean somethings, but I'd prefer something more generic such > as "std" or "standard" or "system", or even "stdlib". And it's an > opinion, and we all have one. Even having lowercased namespace names for > PHP standard library wouldn't bother me much: it would make it > consistent in reading (e.g. `use std\array\first` for example, vs > \array_first()` vs `use Spl\Array\first`). OK stupid point here, but > fact is I don't really care, I just try to make a point here: we are > free to invent new things, or get old things from other languages. We > have all the possibilities of the world and beyond offering themselves > to us, the only limit is our imagination. > > I disagree about narrow scope: if we / you don't think about the future, > each narrow iteration will only get more and more inconsistent, each > step will be a flame ware about naming, and no convention or consistency > will emerge. And it will be slow. I will retire before I'll see an Array > class or a `collection` namespace. And I'm not even that old! This will > fatigue people, and kill any kind of good faith or good sense we still > yet have. > > I think that namespacing, even if its implementation starts narrow (this > make sense) should be thought thoroughly with a wider scope, with a > global scheme even more. It should be voted with a complete view of what > it will become, and how that makes stuff consistent across the whole > actual and future SPL. > > I know this has not much chances to happen, because people always > disagree for purely subjective reasons (beauty of names, ease of typing, > semantic meaning of stuff, weird keyboard layout, or just because some > people don't like when it's other people's ideas which get to be chosen > or voted for) anyhow, I think that narrow scope will only gets PHP > standard library farther from its goal than help it. > > This was my 2 cents, > > Best regards, > > -- > > Pierre > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php >
You make some good points, Pierre. Here are my main rebuttals: 1. "Spl" is already the effective namespace for the SPL because that's the prefix used by SplFixedArray, SplQueue, spl_classes, and so on. Its namespace has already been de facto chosen. 2. We have two proposals adding new things to the SPL for 8.1, so we need to decide if they are going into ext/spl as 1. \Spl\Thing, 2. \SplThing, or 3. \Thing. Keeping the wider vision in mind is a great principle, but we need to decide on these new additions _now_ despite not reaching consensus on the wider thing. Obviously, I'm hopeful we can agree on using the Spl namespace for these additions, and any future SPL additions. [1]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/any_all_on_iterable#vote -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
