Dmitry, Can you send me the patch (or alternatively, where can I get it)? I'd like to see how you did this.
My problem with "::" is that you can't distinguish between calling a function in a namespace and calling a static method, e.g.: a::b() This can mean either "call static method b of class a" or "call function b in namespace a". Does your patch solve a similar problem? Regards, Jessie ""Dmitry Stogov"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Marcus, > > You saw my patch that works with "::" and doesn't break any scripts. > > Dmitry. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 3:42 PM > > To: Bob Silva > > Cc: 'Christian Schneider'; 'PHP internals' > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1 (Or How to break tousands > > of apps out there) > > > > > > Hello Bob, > > > > it is only awkward because you want to turn php into c++. > > We are a different language here and thus can chose any > > separator that works for us. And neither : nor :: work. > > Instead from keeping us from working by having to explain > > this over and over and over again i suggest you show me a > > working patch that does not break trillions of php scripts. > > > > marcus > > > > Saturday, November 26, 2005, 3:36:42 AM, you wrote: > > > > > For what its worth (not much), I'd rather give up namespace > > constants > > > and use : rather than enforce whitespace which is just BAD from a > > > language perspective. Makes it feel like programming in bash. The > > > concept behind namespaces (in PHP at least) is rooted in OOP, so > > > requiring a class just to have constants in your namespace > > isn't too > > > much to ask for. The parser should always be able to handle > > > <namespace>:<class>::<whatever> and not conflict with other syntax. > > > > > If we are truly stuck with \ so be it, but I think > > alternatives with > > > some level of compromise should be considered before \ is settled > > > upon. It's just plain awkward IMO. > > > > > > > Bob Silva > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Christian Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:42 PM > > >> To: Marcus Boerger > > >> Cc: PHP internals > > >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1 (Or How to break > > tousands of apps > > >> out > > >> there) > > >> > > >> Marcus Boerger wrote: > > >> > here again namespaces would be perfect. Given a lib > > that doesn't > > >> prefix > > >> > you'd simply do: > > >> > namespace LibNameHere { reqire "some_lib_include"; } > > >> > and be done...wohooo :-) > > >> > > >> Only if newly introduced PHP core classes use a namespace > > too. You'll > > >> have to use PHP\Date (or the like) if you want to avoid > > conflicts in > > >> existing code. Plus maybe something like "import PHP\Date > > as Date" or > > >> something along these lines if you want to avoid PHP\ in newly > > >> written code where you know that there is no Date class yet. > > >> > > >> PS: I'd rather have : for namespaces with the whitespace > > restriction > > >> for ? a:x : b:y than the confusing (escaping characters > > outside of a > > >> string?) backslash. > > >> > > >> - Chris > > >> > > >> -- > > >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > Marcus > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
