I agree, FWIW.

-Andrei


On Jul 9, 2007, at 12:49 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

> > +1 for braces.
> > <?php
> >   function super_common_function_every_namespace_in_my_project_uses 
> > (){
> >   }
> >   namespace A::B {
> >     function foo() {
> >       //arcana of A::B stuff
> >     }
> >   }
> > ?>
> 
>  That's what I would like to avoid. Because if you need namespaces,  
>  then you want to segment your naming space. If you in the same time  
>  pollute the global space with non-namespaced function names, the  
>  whole namespace business is kind of meaningless. Or you want your  
>  library not polluting global space, or you don't.
> 
>  That's not the question of usage frequency - if you don't use one  
>  function and frequently use another, put them in different files  
>  for starters. And there's nothing preventing one from frequently  
>  using namespaced function - that's exactly why namespaces are  
>  proposed, to make frequent use of long names easier. That's why  
>  import exists.
> 
> > If you want to document "namespaces will never be nested" from the
> > get-go, that would be fine, of course.
> 
>  I see no reason to nest namespaces - since there's no relation  
>  between Foo::bar and Foo::bar::Baz as namespaces - they are  
>  different strings. Nesting is needed only when there is a relation,  
>  and I think that's just unnecessary complication, not worth the  
>  trouble.
>  -- 
>  Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
>  stas@[...].com   http://www.zend.com/
>  (408)253-8829   MSN: stas@[...].com
> 
>  -- 
>  PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>  To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php