Greg Ewing wrote: > I wouldn't object to it. I also wouldn't object to using the extended > function syntax for static and class methods. I just don't want to see > some horrible kludge stretching the extended function syntax to places > it doesn't naturally want to go. Is that a dislike towards the notation, or towards the implementation strategy. I agree that an implementation using getframe is ugly. However, I do think that the proposed notation is natural, and that there is a clean implementation for it, too (just provide the filter with a reference to the namespace-under-construction). Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4