Noting to fix. This is by design.
AZ namespace A {
AZ namespace B{
AZ class C {
AZ function D() { print asdf\n; }
AZ }
AZ }
AZ
AZ }
AZ
AZ B::C::D();
AZ
AZ Apparently, the parser allows nesting namespaces, but they are all
AZ registered as global ones.
What is the value of that syntax? That seems entirely confiusing to
me. If
namespace A { namespace B {} }
doesn't create a nested namespace, what is the value of having it?
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 01:10 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Noting to fix. This is by design.
AZ namespace
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 13:18, George Schlossnagle wrote:
What is the value of that syntax? That seems entirely confiusing to
me. If
namespace A { namespace B {} }
I believe the way it was designed was:
namespace A {
namespace A:B {
class C {
}
}
}
-Sterling
PS:
SH I believe the way it was designed was:
SH
SH namespace A {
SH namespace A:B {
SHclass C {
SH}
SH }
SH }
That's the same thing. As was noted repeatedly on the lists, ':' has no
semantic meaning, A and A:B are not related in any way.
One again:
Namespaces are not
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Shane Caraveo wrote:
The syntax is meaningless and confusing if the program does not operate
the way it is written. By all sensible considerations, B should be
local to A. Since it is not, the syntax should cause a parser error,
and the same with namespaces. And then
The syntax is meaningless and confusing if the program does not operate
the way it is written. By all sensible considerations, B should be
local to A. Since it is not, the syntax should cause a parser error,
and the same with namespaces. And then what happens with that stuff
when, at some
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Sascha Schumann wrote:
The syntax is meaningless and confusing if the program does not operate
the way it is written. By all sensible considerations, B should be
local to A. Since it is not, the syntax should cause a parser error,
and the same with namespaces. And
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
DR But it *is* confusing (just as function() { function() {} }, but of
DR course we can not change that anymore). What is the reason of
DR allowing this 'nested' stuff?
Because someone asked for it. I don't see why it is so bad.
That's a bad reason for a bad feature.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Shane Caraveo wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Couldn't you make the same argument for:
function A() {
function B() {
}
}
I would :)
The syntax is meaningless and confusing if the program does not operate
the way it is written. By all sensible
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 02:36 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Shane Caraveo wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Couldn't you make the same argument for:
function A() {
function B() {
}
}
I would :)
The syntax is meaningless and confusing if the program does not
local to A. Since it is not, the syntax should cause a parser error,
and the same with namespaces. And then what happens with that stuff
when, at some point in the future, proper scoping is implemented?
Well, I don't know for the future and stuff. I talked with Andi and he
agrees with
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Well, I don't know for the future and stuff. I talked with Andi and he
agrees with you (i.e., he doesn't see a use in nested namespaces) so I
would probably un-nest them.
Also, I think that include() (and its brothers) should be not part of
At 19:45 26.03.2003, Shane Caraveo wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Couldn't you make the same argument for:
function A() {
function B() {
}
}
I would :)
The syntax is meaningless and confusing if the program does not operate
the way it is written. By all sensible considerations, B
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Shane Caraveo wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Couldn't you make the same argument for:
function A() {
function B() {
}
}
I would :)
The syntax is meaningless and confusing if the program does not operate
the way it is written. By all sensible
At 21:22 26.03.2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 08:43 PM 3/26/2003 +0100, Marcus Börger wrote:
Lets disallow both nesting function and NOT WORKING nested namespaces
(and classes?) for PHP5.
We changed a lot and took care about BC issues even more but why not get
rid of these shit? AND
why
15 matches
Mail list logo
