Greg Beaver schreef:
> Martin Alterisio wrote:
>> Consider the following code:
>>
>> foo.php:
>> <?php
>> class test {
>> public static function foo() { echo "I'm foo in class test\n"; }
>> public static function foo2() { self::foo(); }
>> }
>> ?>
>>
>> foo2.php:
>> <?php
>> namespace test;
>> function foo() { echo "I'm foo in namespace test\n"; }
>> ?>
>>
>> test.php:
>> <?php
>> include 'foo.php';
>> include 'foo2.php';
>> test::foo(); // I'm foo in namespace test
>> use test::foo as dummy;
>> test::foo(); // I'm foo in namespace test
>> test::foo2(); // I'm foo in class test
>> $test = 'test';
>> $test::foo(); // I'm foo in class test
>> call_user_func(array('test', 'foo')); // I'm foo in class test
>> ?>
>>
>> Please review the following observations:
>>
>> There's a name clash that goes undetected: test::foo refers to both a
>> namespaced function and a static method.
>>
>> Once the clash occur there's no way to refer to the static method through a
>> static reference, except when within the class scope where you can refer to
>> the method through self::
>> The static method remains partially hidden by the namespaced function.
>
> Don't forget about ::test::foo() which refers to class test, method
> foo(). However, this is an issue, and one of the main reasons I dislike
> putting functions and constants in namespaces, as this ends up sort of
> like OO without inheritance and confuses the issue of static methods as
> you pointed out.
>
> However, having said that, in my experience, developers either use
> functions or OO, very rarely mixing the two on an extensive basis, and
> so name collisions become much less likely between static methods and
> namespaced functions.
why exactly should we need to have this ambiguity and possible naming collision?
I thought namespaces are about avoiding naming collisions?
>
> Greg
>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
