Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » RE: namespace separator poll, update »

RE: namespace separator poll, update

php.internals

Ford, Mike [LSS]

20 years ago
On 28 November 2005 09:50, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > > BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about > > > what you would like. The ":" for example would work if mandatory > > > whitespace would be introduced for the ternary BUT this is very > > > very bad. > > If my vote is counted (not that I asked for it :) then I vote against > all funky syntax, present and future. :: is only thing that is > obvious and somehow connected to the world of PHP as we know it now.
Wow! I go home early on a Friday, and come back to a veritable php-dev flood in my Inbox! That must be the most active weekend since I started reading the list!! My point of view is similar to Stanislav's: any operator chosen should have some echo of existing syntax -- this rules out the original suggestion of \ and many of the suggested alternatives. I'm also completely against any solution that introduces new enforced whitespace, however unlikely the construct -- that just doesn't seem like "the PHP way". The two existing "class to member" operators are :: and ->, so I'd be looking at analogues of these. I'm not keen on :: itself performing double-duty here, and I hate ::: and most of the repeated-character suggestions (%%, .., **, etc.) -- especially as the single-character versions all have completely unrelated meanings. This leaves me looking for something not dissimilar to ->. It's a shame that => is already taken, as that would have done nicely. :> (or ::>), despite their smiley-ness, are actually quite clever suggestions, containing echoes of both :: and -> -- I'd be ok with either of these. Another possibility I haven't seen offered, and that has strong echoes of ->, is ~>. I can't see any conflicts here, it's sufficiently similar to be obviously related, but sufficiently different to be easily distinguished. What do people think? (Space for flame here...) Cheers! Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Ford, Electronic Information Services Adviser, Learning Support Services, Learning & Information Services, JG125, James Graham Building, Leeds Metropolitan University, Headingley Campus, LEEDS, LS6 3QS, United Kingdom Email: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk Tel: +44 113 283 2600 extn 4730 Fax: +44 113 283 3211 To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm

Ron Korving

20 years ago
wow, I like foo~>bar~>obj->method() I love ':' best, but if that really can't be, I must say '~>' looks pretty cool to me, cute even, like a little fishie ;) anywaaay.. the best alternative to ':' i've seen so far, and i doubt it'll cause problems with any existing operator. - ron ""Ford, Mike"" <M.Ford@leedsmet.ac.uk> schreef in bericht news:CDA511FF6152D14E922434CE338CE8BB275841@leedsmet-exch1.leedsmet.ac.uk... On 28 November 2005 09:50, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > > BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about > > > what you would like. The ":" for example would work if mandatory > > > whitespace would be introduced for the ternary BUT this is very > > > very bad. > > If my vote is counted (not that I asked for it :) then I vote against > all funky syntax, present and future. :: is only thing that is > obvious and somehow connected to the world of PHP as we know it now.
Wow! I go home early on a Friday, and come back to a veritable php-dev flood in my Inbox! That must be the most active weekend since I started reading the list!! My point of view is similar to Stanislav's: any operator chosen should have some echo of existing syntax -- this rules out the original suggestion of \ and many of the suggested alternatives. I'm also completely against any solution that introduces new enforced whitespace, however unlikely the construct -- that just doesn't seem like "the PHP way". The two existing "class to member" operators are :: and ->, so I'd be looking at analogues of these. I'm not keen on :: itself performing double-duty here, and I hate ::: and most of the repeated-character suggestions (%%, .., **, etc.) -- especially as the single-character versions all have completely unrelated meanings. This leaves me looking for something not dissimilar to ->. It's a shame that => is already taken, as that would have done nicely. :> (or ::>), despite their smiley-ness, are actually quite clever suggestions, containing echoes of both :: and -> -- I'd be ok with either of these. Another possibility I haven't seen offered, and that has strong echoes of ->, is ~>. I can't see any conflicts here, it's sufficiently similar to be obviously related, but sufficiently different to be easily distinguished. What do people think? (Space for flame here...) Cheers! Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Ford, Electronic Information Services Adviser, Learning Support Services, Learning & Information Services, JG125, James Graham Building, Leeds Metropolitan University, Headingley Campus, LEEDS, LS6 3QS, United Kingdom Email: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk Tel: +44 113 283 2600 extn 4730 Fax: +44 113 283 3211 To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm

Marian Kostadinov

20 years ago
Is ` (back quote) suitable for namespace separator? I cannot remember just now if it was used somewhere. 2005/11/28, Ron Korving <r.korving@xit.nl>:

sebastian

20 years ago
It's used for shell execution stuff. Perl did something similar and quickly regretted it On 11/28/05, Marian Kostadinov <manchokapitancho@gmail.com> wrote:

Bart de Boer

20 years ago
Well, the problem is: '->' isn't used for classes. It's used for objects! An object is an instance of a class. '~>' Would be more appropriate if there would be such a thing as an instance of a namespace. But not for accessing the namespace itself. (In my opinion) This is why I think it should be something similar to :: and not to -> or anything with >. Personally I *really* prefer :: since, from a programming point of view, a namespace "container" acts almost the same as a class "container". I think this is also more consistent with other programming languages. But people said this would be a performance hit. So, if performance really is an issue. How about ;; then? name1;;name2::myfunction(); Ron Korving wrote:

Sean Coates

20 years ago
> How about ;; then? > name1;;name2::myfunction();
PLEASE, MAKE IT STOP! ;; is already perfectly valid syntax: sean@iconoclast:~$ php5 -r 'define("name1",FALSE); class name2{function myfunction(){ echo "foo\n"; }} name1;;name2::myfunction();' foo * Pre-existing operators are out of the question. * Enforcing whitespace is out of the question. * There's no solid reason not to use "\" ("I think it's ugly" is not a solid reason). This thread isn't actually accomplishing anything. If I'm not mistaken, it's degraded to the point that many of the core devs (the ones who'll actually make the final decision) have stopped paying attention. We're talking in circles and are probably getting nothing resolved. S