On 13/08/2019 18:05, Rowan Collins wrote:
This seems to be more complicated than Nicolas's version, and involve
much more special magic, like the name __nsmeta, and the class that does
nothing. I'm also not clear on how you're picturing the relationship
between namespaces and packages.
I was
> On 14 Aug 2019, at 00:05, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
>> On 13/08/2019 12:01, Mark Randall wrote:
>>> On 13/08/2019 10:02, Rowan Collins wrote:
>>> I really like this approach. It allows a package definition file to exist,
>>> without either the language or the header of each file having to
On 13/08/2019 12:01, Mark Randall wrote:
On 13/08/2019 10:02, Rowan Collins wrote:
I really like this approach. It allows a package definition file to
exist, without either the language or the header of each file having
to define its location.
#
# File: /lib/company/project1/a/b/MyClass.php
Not sure what the counter argument is really driving at.
So, because some people are using a function or an unworthy directive, then
there can't be a major change in that aspect?
Many languages clean up many unused functions, directives and so more just
to meet some proper standard.
I'm been
On 13/08/2019 18:45, Mark Randall wrote:
I thought about this as my first consideration, however it effectively
requires that the PHP code within the package class is fully parsed
and executed in order for it to retrieve the data.
Consider pre-loading where the code is compiled, but not run,
Hi Stas,
Thanks for replying!
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 at 04:26, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> The risk here however is for the document to be seen as a means to
> "argue less" by way of excluding certain points of view from discussion.
> That would not be a good thing. This is the main concern for
Not sure what the counter argument is really driving at.
So, because some people are using a function or an unworthy directive, then
there can't be a major change in that aspect?
Many languages clean up many unused functions, directives and so more just
to meet some proper standard.
I'm been
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:31 PM Peter Bowyer
wrote:
> Hi Stas,
>
> Thanks for replying!
>
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 at 04:26, Stanislav Malyshev
> wrote:
>
> > The risk here however is for the document to be seen as a means to
> > "argue less" by way of excluding certain points of view from
On 13/08/2019 21:26, Rowan Collins wrote:
Ah, that makes sense. Does that necessarily mean we need a dummy class,
though? The autoloading logic in the engine knows that it called the
autoload callback expecting a package definition, so can count as
success that the package is now defined.
In
On 13/08/2019 18:40, Liam Hammett wrote:
This already works (except for the "encoding" declare, which would make
little sense halfway down a file).
spl_autoload_register(function ($className) {
declare(strict_types=1) {
include $className . '.php';
}
});
This,
Hi!
> I disagree that (as I take away from your last sentence) the current
> approach is better because it means people feel they have been properly
> heard. I can think of recent messages on the list from people saying
> that they don't feel heard.
I'm not saying we have perfect record in
On 12/08/2019 09:17, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
Individual files could declare their package using this style:
I really like this approach. It allows a package definition file to
exist, without either the language or the header of each file having to
define its location.
Importantly, although
On 13/08/2019 10:02, Rowan Collins wrote:
I really like this approach. It allows a package definition file to
exist, without either the language or the header of each file having to
define its location.
#
# File: /lib/company/project1/a/b/MyClass.php
#
Caveat would be for situations that do
13 matches
Mail list logo
