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 - isn't PHP famous for
> being inconsistent?) The question there is: Where do we want to go
> tomorrow? Do we want to namespace internal stuff? All of it? Or do we
> still want to own the global namespace and put internal classes there?
> As long as that isn't decided it's hard to make a decision about
> aliasing.
> So I'd say we need the RFC which defines rules for future stuff
> (All/"non-core" parts/nothing in namespaces) and then the consequences
> for existing stuff.

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 reliably avoid collisions as the other option would be to
prefix anything except core. But what if we move an extension out of
core, should it be prefixed than?

cu, Lars

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Reply via email to