On 15.10.2008, at 11:35, Ron Rademaker wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
What would be the advantage of wrapping legacy functions in a
namespace over wrapping them into a class as static functions?
THAT is probably why I am asking the question? And may well be key
to my understanding why converting non OO code into OO code in PHP
is so problematic. When I was coding in CC++ more heavily libraries
did not need to be objects and the 'namespace' just wrapped the
code OR the code was built as an object. That is what I understand
by a namespace, so perhaps I do not understand why leaving out
functions and constants is acceptable :(
I don't think there's any difference between moving non OO functions
to a class and making the static and moving those to a namespace (in
a suggested syntax it would be: Bar:::foo() for a namespace and
Bar::foo() already for a class). Even more, I think there are
advantages for moving a legacy app to a class because it allows you
to make your global variables (like things in legacy apps) class
members. Of course that's only an advantage if you agree that
globals are evil...
So my conclusion would be that leaving out functions and constants
is acceptable because there's no advantage of having those in a
namespace. Classes already provide everything you would possibly
want from namespaces for functions and constants.
well you cannot split a class definition across several files. so if
you move your functions to a class, you need to move them all to a
single file.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
