On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Nathan Rixham <nrix...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kyle Terry wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Nathan Rixham <nrix...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Eric Butera wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Kyle Terry <k...@kyleterry.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Edmund Hertle < >>>>> edmund.her...@student.kit.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 2009/1/20 Nathan Rixham <nrix...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sounds like a starting point. and the starting point imho, interfaces >>>>>>> and abstracts, then implementations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> can i gather that this is a postive response and a few interested >>>>>>> parties? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> if so important things like is this discussed on this list or where, >>>>>>> need >>>>>>> for server space and svn? etc scope for a user group / list @ php on >>>>>>> this? >>>>>>> or what..? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + all monkeys no organ grinder approach, no release until all happy >>>>>>> (negating obvious trouble makers) and maybe a release manager for >>>>>>> svn. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> more thoughts please >>>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I think we should not go to fast... maybe we are setting up SVN, >>>>>> webspace, domain, mailing-list and in the end this is only used by 4-5 >>>>>> people. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Well, I use Comcast and they put a 250gig cap per month of their >>>>> residential >>>>> customer, so my server can only be used temporarily if we need one. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Guys there's plenty of free "open source" hosted svn/git servers. Do >>>> a google search. >>>> >>>> >>> lol and sourceforge [doh]; that way if anything takes off natural user >>> base >>> and integrated promotion "most active" - possibly with aid of tony :D >>> >>> >> http://gitorious.org/ >> > > open to debate; my preference for now goes to sourceforge as it's all there > including space with php support; proven you know. However i like new > projects as well so open but overall +1 goes to whatever gets us up and > running with the least time spent. > > and on the other side.. to open things up > > interface Object { > } > > or > > abstract class Object { > } > > or > > class Object { > } > > nothing else for now: > > reason: > to address the current and forseable lack of function(object $obj) in php; > in addition to allow future scope for any common to all methods (or any > implementation of this to have) > > i guess first is it a good idea to have any of the above and to address > this, then next if so which? >
That needs to be prefixed. Or maybe namespaces if you're targeting 5.3? It'd suck to have a lot of code using such a thing only to become a reserved word. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
