Bart de Boer schrieb:
> namespace JessieStuff {
> class FirstClass { ... }
> class SecondClass {
> public $obj;
> function __construct() {
> $this->obj = new FirstClass();
> }
> }
> }
>
> Now we'd import this with prefixing everything and the
> result would be something that acts like:
>
> class JessieStuff_FirstClass { ... }
> class JessieStuff_SecondClass {
> public $obj;
> function __construct() {
> $this->obj = new FirstClass();
> }
> }
>
> Then, if I do:
> $x = new JessieStuff_SecondClass();
>
> I'd get an error that 'FirstClass' can't be found. Because it's
> renamed to JessieStuff_FirstClass.
Nope. First of all, using FirstClass INSIDE the namespace would always
prefer using the own namespace. Local definitions override global
definitions (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_namespace ).
And then, the class is hopefully NOT renamed but aliased:
namespace a
{
class A1 {}
class A2
{
protected $m=null;
protected $n=null;
public function __construct()
{
// should both work
$this->m=new A1();
$this->m=new a:::A1();
}
}
}
$x=new a:::A2();
import namespace a;
$y=new A2(); // should work after import
import a:::A2 as Foo;
$z=new Foo(); // should work, A2 locally knows A1
$yikes=new a_A2(); // should work with auto_import_prefix set to on
> Or do you suggest we replace all occurences of 'new ClassName()' to
> 'new JessieStuff_ClassName()' as well?
Occurences where?
> Or do you suggest that everything that was inside the namespace is
> still able to call "internal" classes without using the namespace
> prefix? And your INI option only provides interface classes?
This is part of the definition of namespaces.
And yes, I want the INI option to just provide aliases.
If these are implemented by injecting
class a_A2 extends a::A2 {}
as interface classes or by internally providing a hash table alias is
only different from a technical point of view. The result would be the
same, the performance would probably better using the alias.
OLLi
