PHP's global namespace

[Tim Tyler]

Why are PHP's system functions all in a global namespace?

Won't this lead to chaos as new functions are added, which have names
which clash with user-defined functions?
--
__________
|im |yler [url]http://timtyler.org/[/url] [email]tim@tt1lock.org[/email] Remove lock to reply.

[Timo Henke]

Tim Tyler wrote:

> Why are PHP's system functions all in a global namespace?
>
> Won't this lead to chaos as new functions are added, which have names
> which clash with user-defined functions?

simple : do not use php functions as your own names. this would conflict
in ANY language!

regards

timo

[Tim Tyler]

Timo Henke <timonews@fli7e.de> wrote or quoted:

> Tim Tyler wrote:

>> Why are PHP's system functions all in a global namespace?
>>
>> Won't this lead to chaos as new functions are added, which have names
>> which clash with user-defined functions?

>
> simple : do not use php functions as your own names.

I was talking about new functions added to PHP.

Avoiding those would apparently require precognition.

Rarely have I seen user functions going into such a crowded namespace -
picking function names feels a bit like navigating a minefield.

> this would conflict in ANY language!

Other languages don't put all their functions straight into a global namespace.
--
__________
|im |yler [url]http://timtyler.org/[/url] [email]tim@tt1lock.org[/email] Remove lock to reply.

[Ian P. Christian]

Tim Tyler wrote:

> Other languages don't put all their functions straight into a global
> namespace.

I think this issue has more to do with the fact namespaces arn't a feature
of PHP. They will be included in PHP5.

Kind Regards,

--
Ian P. Christian

[Andy Hassall]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:30:30 +0100, "Ian P. Christian" <pookey@pookey.co.uk>
wrote:

>Tim Tyler wrote:
>

>> Other languages don't put all their functions straight into a global
>> namespace.

>
>I think this issue has more to do with the fact namespaces arn't a feature
>of PHP. They will be included in PHP5.

The last I heard the developers changed their minds on that, and they're not
going to be implemented.

Which is a big shame, because name clashes are inevitable once there's enough
people working on a PHP project, or you use several libraries in one script.

[url]http://news.php.net/article.php?group=php.internals&article=2124[/url]

Hopefully they will, or already have, reversed that decision.

--
Andy Hassall (andy@andyh.co.uk) icq(5747695) ([url]http://www.andyh.co.uk[/url])
Space: disk usage analysis tool ([url]http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space[/url])

[Ian P. Christian]

Andy Hassall wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:30:30 +0100, "Ian P. Christian"
> <pookey@pookey.co.uk> wrote:
>

>>Tim Tyler wrote:
>>

>>> Other languages don't put all their functions straight into a global
>>> namespace.

>>
>>I think this issue has more to do with the fact namespaces arn't a feature
>>of PHP. They will be included in PHP5.

>
> The last I heard the developers changed their minds on that, and they're
> not
> going to be implemented.
>
> Which is a big shame, because name clashes are inevitable once there's
> enough
> people working on a PHP project, or you use several libraries in one
> script.

Oh, that is a shame :(

I personally use classes though to provide namespaceish functionality.

Auth::getAuth(); etc. etc.

Kind Regards,

--
Ian P. Christian

[André Næss]

Tim Tyler:

> Timo Henke <timonews@fli7e.de> wrote or quoted:

>> Tim Tyler wrote:

>

>>> Why are PHP's system functions all in a global namespace?
>>>
>>> Won't this lead to chaos as new functions are added, which have names
>>> which clash with user-defined functions?

>>
>> simple : do not use php functions as your own names.

>
> I was talking about new functions added to PHP.
>
> Avoiding those would apparently require precognition.
>
> Rarely have I seen user functions going into such a crowded namespace -
> picking function names feels a bit like navigating a minefield.

In my 4 years of PHP experience this has not been a problem for me. I can't
remember ever being bothered by this feature of PHP. It's seems like a
terrible idea, but it doesn't really work that bad.

André Næss

[Keith Bowes]

Tim Tyler wrote:

> Why are PHP's system functions all in a global namespace?
>
> Won't this lead to chaos as new functions are added, which have names
> which clash with user-defined functions?

Functions typically have a library prefix to get around this:
array_sort()
preg_replace()
..
..
..

It would be nice if this convention were refined and the old functions
would be removed in PHP 5.

[Phil Roberts]

With total disregard for any kind of safety measures Keith Bowes
<do.not@spam.me> leapt forth and uttered:

> It would be nice if this convention were refined and the old
> functions would be removed in PHP 5.
>

Or at least a series of function aliases put in place that define a
proper naming standard whilst maintaining a certain degree of
backwards-compatibility.

I don't see why this would cause noticable overhead. Many existing
functions already have more than one name.

--
There is no signature.....

[Nikolai Chuvakhin]

Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
news:<HMy4KL.HIM@bath.ac.uk>...

>
> Why are PHP's system functions all in a global namespace?

Because there is no concept of namespace in PHP, I believe.

> Won't this lead to chaos as new functions are added, which
> have names which clash with user-defined functions?

Highly unlikely, especially given the fact that all functions
added after a certain point are prefixed with their extension
name (imap_*, ldap_*, mysql_*, etc.). If you are concerned
with namespace issues, you might as well adopt a similar
approach and prefix all your functions in a similar fashion.

Cheers,
NC

[Tim Tyler]

Nikolai Chuvakhin <nc@iname.com> wrote or quoted:

> If you are concerned with namespace issues, you might as well adopt a
> similar approach and prefix all your functions in a similar fashion.

Namespaces via a naming convention seems like a hack to me.

For one thing, it fails to make referring to things in your
"own" namespace any easier.

Wouldn't it be better to use classes for this purpose?
--
__________
|im |yler [url]http://timtyler.org/[/url] [email]tim@tt1lock.org[/email] Remove lock to reply.

[Nikolai Chuvakhin]

Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
news:<Hn00CC.LHs@bath.ac.uk>...

> Nikolai Chuvakhin <nc@iname.com> wrote or quoted:
>

> > If you are concerned with namespace issues, you might as well adopt a
> > similar approach and prefix all your functions in a similar fashion.

>
> Namespaces via a naming convention seems like a hack to me.

But it's an easy one; that's what counts in a language that, above all,
is supposed to be simple.

> For one thing, it fails to make referring to things in your
> "own" namespace any easier.

This is by and large a matter of personal taste. You want your
own namespace because having it makes you feel more comfortable.
I don't want my own namespace because having it makes me feel
less comfortable.

> Wouldn't it be better to use classes for this purpose?

To some people, yes. To an old-fashioned procedural type like yours
truly, it's an unnecessary and potentially wasteful hassle.

Cheers,
NC