RE: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Marc Boeren
> Stupid suggestion, is ::: (three colons) pushing it? What's wrong with :>, except for the fact that it resembles a smiley? There is already -> and =>... Cheerio, Marc. -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Jon Parise
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:55:16PM +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote: > Maybe we need to think if there's a possibility to combine namespaces and > classes and therefore it automatically would be ::. I am against two > mechanisms that use :: but if we can find a nice way of combining the two > (haven'

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Boian Bonev
> BB>> why not => then. imo the parser will easily distinguish array > BB>> definition from an expression > The last thing we need is symbol reuse. The parser can distinguish a lot > of things, the problem is that the human developer would be confused. => > has a clear meaning in PHP, adding other

[PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Zak Greant
On October 1, 2001 04:51 am, Andi Gutmans wrote: > At 12:46 PM 10/1/2001 +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote: [snip] > >I still think Zeev's suggestion (HTML::Table) is very good, if it > >doesn't impose too much runtime overhead. > > I don't like Zeev's suggestion because it does impose an extra hash

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Zak Greant
On October 1, 2001 04:46 am, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote: > [Zak Greant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > > > On September 30, 2001 06:15 pm, Wez Furlong wrote: > > > What about "." then (Java/Delphi)? > > > > > > --Wez. > > > > Wouldn't that conflict with the concatenation operator? > > > > Unless I am mistake

Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Kristian Koehntopp
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:06:05PM +0200, Marc Boeren wrote: > If that is impossible, how about some new combination, like :> > > HTML:>Table looks ok, too... > Some languages use quotes like ' or ` to indicate namespaces. Since the context in question may not allow the start of a string consta

Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Markus Fischer
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:06:05PM +0200, Marc Boeren wrote : > > > I still think Zeev's suggestion (HTML::Table) is very good, if it > > doesn't impose too much runtime overhead. > > +1 for :: > > If that is impossible, how about some new combination, like :> Er... I usually don't want my co

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 12:48 PM 10/1/2001 +0200, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: >Stig Sæther Bakken wrote: > >>Whoa. Once again I'm on that train of thought that eliminates the >>difference between classes and namespaces. +1 from me. >> - Stig >>[Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >> >>>:: is taken, but why not do it th

[PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 12:46 PM 10/1/2001 +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote: >[Zak Greant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > > On September 30, 2001 06:15 pm, Wez Furlong wrote: > > > What about "." then (Java/Delphi)? > > > > > > --Wez. > > > > Wouldn't that conflict with the concatenation operator? > > > > Unless I am mistaken,

Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Marc Boeren
> I still think Zeev's suggestion (HTML::Table) is very good, if it > doesn't impose too much runtime overhead. +1 for :: If that is impossible, how about some new combination, like :> HTML:>Table looks ok, too... Cheerio, Marc. -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsu

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Hartmut Holzgraefe
Stig Sæther Bakken wrote: > Whoa. Once again I'm on that train of thought that eliminates the > difference between classes and namespaces. +1 from me. > > - Stig > > [Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > >>:: is taken, but why not do it the C++ way? It also uses :: for both >>classes and na

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Stig Sæther Bakken
[Zak Greant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > On September 30, 2001 06:15 pm, Wez Furlong wrote: > > What about "." then (Java/Delphi)? > > > > --Wez. > > Wouldn't that conflict with the concatenation operator? > > Unless I am mistaken, it looks like only the following single symbols > are available: % *

Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Stig Sæther Bakken
[Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > At 09:35 PM 9/30/2001 +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote: > >[Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > > > Hey, > > > > > > I just started playing around with the parser to support the > > > namespaces syntax Stig laid out in his RFC. I think I've thought of an > > > a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Stig Sæther Bakken
Whoa. Once again I'm on that train of thought that eliminates the difference between classes and namespaces. +1 from me. - Stig [Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > :: is taken, but why not do it the C++ way? It also uses :: for both > classes and namespaces. > > Zeev > > At 21:35 30-09-01

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-10-01 Thread Stanislav Malyshev
BB>> why not => then. imo the parser will easily distinguish array BB>> definition from an expression The last thing we need is symbol reuse. The parser can distinguish a lot of things, the problem is that the human developer would be confused. => has a clear meaning in PHP, adding other meaning

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-09-30 Thread Boian Bonev
; Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 11:02 PM Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity Well the difference is that C++ can figure out what to do at compile-time. I don't think we can which means

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-09-30 Thread Chuck Hagenbuch
Quoting Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > :: is taken, but why not do it the C++ way? It also uses :: for both > classes and namespaces. +1 on that. -chuck -- "Because of your melodic nature, the moonlight never misses an appointment." - fortune cookie -- PHP Development Mailing List

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-09-30 Thread Zak Greant
On September 30, 2001 06:15 pm, Wez Furlong wrote: > What about "." then (Java/Delphi)? > > --Wez. Wouldn't that conflict with the concatenation operator? Unless I am mistaken, it looks like only the following single symbols are available: % * | \ (outside of quotes at least) -- Zak Greant P

[PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-09-30 Thread Wez Furlong
What about "." then (Java/Delphi)? --Wez. On 09/30/01, "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well the difference is that C++ can figure out what to do at compile-time. > I don't think we can which means that it would put more logic into run-time > which is a bad thing IMO (especially for

[PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-09-30 Thread Andi Gutmans
Well the difference is that C++ can figure out what to do at compile-time. I don't think we can which means that it would put more logic into run-time which is a bad thing IMO (especially for something new like this). Or can you think of a way to differ between these at compile-time? Andi At 09

[PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-09-30 Thread Sascha Schumann
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: > :: is taken, but why not do it the C++ way? It also uses :: for both > classes and namespaces. I was about to propose that. +1 - Sascha Experience IRCG http://schumann.cx/http://schuman

Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-09-30 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 09:35 PM 9/30/2001 +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote: >[Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > > Hey, > > > > I just started playing around with the parser to support the > > namespaces syntax Stig laid out in his RFC. I think I've thought of an > > ambiguity (with constants) which makes me wonder h

[PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-09-30 Thread Zeev Suraski
:: is taken, but why not do it the C++ way? It also uses :: for both classes and namespaces. Zeev At 21:35 30-09-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote: >[Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > > Hey, > > > > I just started playing around with the parser to support the > > namespaces syntax Stig laid out i

Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-09-30 Thread Jon Parise
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:35:15PM +0200, Stig Sther Bakken wrote: > > I just started playing around with the parser to support the > > namespaces syntax Stig laid out in his RFC. I think I've thought of an > > ambiguity (with constants) which makes me wonder how feasible the > > proposed syntax

Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-09-30 Thread Stig Sæther Bakken
[Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > Hey, > > I just started playing around with the parser to support the > namespaces syntax Stig laid out in his RFC. I think I've thought of an > ambiguity (with constants) which makes me wonder how feasible the > proposed syntax is. > Consider the following ex

Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-09-30 Thread Markus Fischer
All I can say about this ... I don't want to language being intelligent and try to assume any behaviour. In C (gosch, again. No, I don't want to turn PHP into C) under certain cicumstances you get ambiguousity warnings. But this wouldn't be a useful idea for PHP because in C its only during compil

[PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity

2001-09-30 Thread Andi Gutmans
Hey, I just started playing around with the parser to support the namespaces syntax Stig laid out in his RFC. I think I've thought of an ambiguity (with constants) which makes me wonder how feasible the proposed syntax is. Consider the following expression: $test?FOO:BAR:BARBARA Would this mea