On 29 Sep 2008, at 12:47, Nathan Rixham wrote:
Last week I got to thinking about PHP vs other languages.. sparing
the details this is what I decided I'd like my code to look like :)
[what *I* /as an OO developer/ need(?want)]
<?php
package com.mydom.thispackage
Looks a lot like Java, not that that's a bad thing.
{
Completely agree that multiple namespaces per file should be allowed,
and using curly brackets is the obvious syntax.
import com.anotherdom.MysqlDbHandler as DbHandlerA;
import com.somedom.DbHandler as DbHandlerB; # "as" makes this easier
import com.mydom.thatpackage.RssParser; # we don't have to "as"
Would this then be available as RssParser:: or would you need to
specify the full name.
import net.php.pecl.Tidy into TidySpace; # "into namespace"
import org.nicedom.alwaysusethese.*; # why not?
How does PHP work out where these "packages" are?
public class MyClass # visibility on classes
{
private $dba:DbHandlerA = new DbHandlerA();
private $dbb:DbHandlerB = new DbHandlerB();
Can't do this. This would require the compilation phase to execute
code. This is what constructors were made for.
Personally I'd prefer the fairly standard "type varname" order rather
than the "varname:type" you have here.
protected $xmlString:String;
public function __construct( String $xml ):void #return types
Here you've switched to the "type varname" order for the parameters
and gone back to ":type" for the return value. Why not just "function
x(type varname) type" ?
{
if( TidySpace::tidy_is_xml( $xml ) ) { #namespace function call
$this->xmlString = TidySpace::tidy_repair_string( $xml );
One would hope that when namespaces are ubiquitous there will be no
need to prefix functions with package identifiers.
}
}
}
}
?>
all purely a made up example; I'd be interested to here any comments
or what your ideal language (/modified php) would look like.
I've never really thought about how I'd like a languages syntax to be,
I've just accepted the way it is. Having said that I've built a couple
of compilers in my time and for the most part they were a combination
of C, C++ and Perl, much like PHP. So in that respect PHP is the one
that clearly makes the most sense to me for procedural languages.
In terms of OO I've always liked the Objective-C way of doing things.
It seems more natural than the C++ syntax.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
