Ronald Chmara wrote:
On Oct 17, 2008, at 3:53 AM, Nathan Rixham wrote:
*A Simpler Solution*
Force userland / general naming conventions in PHP.
# namespaces are always lowercase
# functions are always lowercase
# classes are always CamelCaps with initial uppercase letter enforced
thus:
Steph Fox skrev:
Would anyone still planning to vote please include a *brief* explanation
of why they're making the choices they're making?
OK. I'm in favour of number 3.
My main involvement with PHP is teaching it. I spend an endless amount
of time tracking down misplaced or omitted
Nathan Rixham wrote:
seen. Personally though I'd love to see stas' #1 get implemented and
- used for all functions in a namespace so..
one::step::two(); //always static method of class
one::step-two(); //always function of namespace.
But it's still ambiguous (only in a rarely though) - if
Gregory Beaver wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
seen. Personally though I'd love to see stas' #1 get implemented and
- used for all functions in a namespace so..
one::step::two(); //always static method of class
one::step-two(); //always function of namespace.
But it's still ambiguous (only in a
On 15.10.2008 22:36, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
This leaves me with the integer overflow failure and the array slice
failure, but they seem to be very specific, and wouldn't normaly bite
the PHP developer.
Right.
That said, we would still appreciate if you figure out the reasons
of these
2008/10/18 Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Triple colon as in suggestion 1 and 2 is a readability nightmare - yes in
both suggestions.
Is that why you voted for 3? Because triple colons are hard to read?
JD
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Josh Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/10/18 Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Triple colon as in suggestion 1 and 2 is a readability nightmare - yes in
both suggestions.
Is that why you voted for 3? Because triple colons are hard to read?
Is that a problem?
2008/10/18 Daniel Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Josh Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/10/18 Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Triple colon as in suggestion 1 and 2 is a readability nightmare - yes in
both suggestions.
Is that why you voted for 3? Because triple
I'm with Keryx. Although I work as a subcontractor for our main company, I
still have to teach some novice PHP programmers what this whole OOP paradigm
is all about, and making them go furter from the third solution that is C++
like, is a pain in the back. I'm in for readable/maintainable code.
That wouldn't be the right thread to discuss the merits of a solution,
anyway. This thread is about the tally, and I'm trying to interpret
it.
I did actually keep tabs on this. Yes the choice of separator played a part
for many. However there were just as many who were happy with it - and the
2008/10/18 Steph Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I did actually keep tabs on this. Yes the choice of separator played a part
for many. However there were just as many who were happy with it - and the
same would have applied whatever separator was used.
What I'm wondering is how many of those many voted
Josh, please...
What I'm wondering is how many of those many voted for or against a
proposition for the wrong reason. For instance, how many users
understood that 2 is not about the use of triple colon? If someone
disregarded 2 because of the triple colon then it was a mistake, as
the triple
Hello Greg,
Many thanks for wirting a nice proposal. Now, I consider #2 and #4 as
no options, just as most everyone else. Regarding #3, I see it
contradicting our KISS approach. You can actually write code where an
Identifier in two scripts that share the same includes mean something
completely
Hello Lukas,
--stas_s-option-because_I_could_not_read_that_code;
marcus
Thursday, October 16, 2008, 6:51:29 PM, you wrote:
On 16.10.2008, at 16:14, Steph Fox wrote:
Please can those people who didn't already express a clear and
relevant
opinion, express it now? We don't have long
Hello William,
Friday, October 17, 2008, 7:57:53 PM, you wrote:
Marcel Esser wrote:
Using ::: as a namespace seperator would be great.
A general rule of telephony dialing and other data input, three of
the same character will too often be entered or recognized as two
or four characters due
Hi Steph
2008/10/18 Steph Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That wouldn't be the right thread to discuss the merits of a solution,
anyway. This thread is about the tally, and I'm trying to interpret
it.
I did actually keep tabs on this. Yes the choice of separator played a part
for many. However there
Hello all,
Greg was so kind to give me part of his awesome upcoming Pyrus code. He
actually has it running with both ':::' and '\' as namespace separators.
So I thought I'd help out a tiny tiny bit by giving you all the choice of
having a look at actual working code:
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello all,
Greg was so kind to give me part of his awesome upcoming Pyrus code. He
actually has it running with both ':::' and '\' as namespace separators.
So I thought I'd help out a tiny tiny bit by giving you all the choice of
having a look at actual working code:
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello all,
Greg was so kind to give me part of his awesome upcoming Pyrus code. He
actually has it running with both ':::' and '\' as namespace separators.
So I thought I'd help out a tiny tiny bit by giving you all the choice of
having a look at actual working code:
Quicker shift + ; x 3 than finding that freakin backslash on my HP 530 notebook.
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Rixham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:52 AM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Namespace issues
Greg was so kind to give me part of his awesome upcoming Pyrus code. He
actually has it running with both ':::' and '\' as namespace separators.
So I thought I'd help out a tiny tiny bit by giving you all the choice of
having a look at actual working code:
21 matches
Mail list logo
