On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 16:15 +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > Robert Cummings wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 13:57 +0200, Marcus Boerger wrote: > >> Hello Rasmus, > >> > >> the limitations given here and very good explained should imo stay. They > >> should because that is not only easier to understand and easier for > >> anything > >> that has to deal with it like opcode caches and whatnot but also adhrers to > >> the good old KISS approach of PHP. > >> > >> That said, instead of changing the current implementation every day we > >> should step back a bit and first find a consensus whether we want anything > >> more or even anything less than what we currently have. > >> > >> My personal feeling is that we should stick to one name binding per file. > >> And we should do so without braces (if I want it complex I just take a more > >> complex language). > > > > While I agree with the one namespace per file camp I think your above > > argument "if I want it complex I just take a more complex language" is > > akin to saying "If I want it OOP I'll take a more OOP language". I'm > > sure you'll agree that's not a very good argument. > > Make as much hard but common stuff easy, keep the easy stuff easy and > make the hard stuff possible. Could this be our mantra?
It's a great mantra, just not always possible :) Cheers, Rob. -- ........................................................... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ........................................................... -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
