Greg Beaver wrote:
This is a bit amusing to read if one takes a step back :). You should
know that there is quite a wide variety of opinions amongst internals
developers about the importance of functions vs. classes. One
interesting point is that none of the internals developers I know who
use
Brian Moon wrote:
>>> 3. Functions will not be allowed inside namespaces. We arrived to
>>> conclusion that they are much more trouble than they're worth, and
>>> summarily we would be better off without them. Most of the
>>> functionality could be easily achieved using static class methods, and
>>
Brian Moon wrote:
3. Functions will not be allowed inside namespaces. We arrived to
conclusion that they are much more trouble than they're worth, and
summarily we would be better off without them. Most of the
functionality could be easily achieved using static class methods, and
the rest may be
3. Functions will not be allowed inside namespaces. We arrived to
conclusion that they are much more trouble than they're worth, and
summarily we would be better off without them. Most of the
functionality could be easily achieved using static class methods, and
the rest may be emulated with varia
Before anyone gets all hyper, my point is *not* to introduce :>, but to
explain that it is in fact technically feasible to extend the definition
of namespaces later to add support for non-class elements and it would
work just fine.
It is, however, not going to be possible to do this post-5.3 with
2008/9/23 Karsten Dambekalns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi.
>
> For what it's worth, my point of view:
>
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>>
>> 1. Allow braces for namespaces. So, the syntax for namespaces will be:
>> a) namespace foo;
>> should be first (non-comment) statement in the file, namespace extend
