Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40536
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain iamjochem.com from 194.109.193.121 cause and error)
Message-ID: <48D06A3C.5080404@iamjochem.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:23:56 +0200
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>
CC: Ionut Gabriel Stan <ionut.stan@yahoo.com>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <46322.71759.qm@web36401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <48D01749.9000105@zend.com>
In-Reply-To: <48D01749.9000105@zend.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Namespaced function vs static method in global class
From: jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas)

Stanislav Malyshev schreef:
> Hi!
> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  1. include.php <?php
>>
>> namespace Test;
>>
>> class Bar { public static function baz() { return 'namespaced static
>> method'; } }
>>
>> function foo() { return 'namespaced function'; }
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  2. index.php <?php
>>
>> require_once 'include.php'; use Test::Bar;
>>
>> class Test { public static function foo() { return 'static method'; }
>>  }
> 
> I would advise you to avoid calling your classes and namespaces by the 
> same name, for the sake of clarity - especially if you are going to have 
> identically named static functions in both. You can always have My::Test 
> instead, etc.

essentially good advice, but completely dismissive of the underlying issue.

> 
>> 2. How should I call the static method
>> baz of class Bar in namespace Test with call_user_func 
> 
> call_user_func(array('Test::Bar', 'baz')). Remember, the true name is 
> always the full name.
> 
>> 3. Is there no possibility to change your minds and replace the double 
>> colon with
>> something else, likes a simple colon? 
> 
> With simple colon - not likely.

what about a simple new concept then?

> 
>> I find it very confusing to
>> figure out what is what and the way I should call it.
> 
> You should always use full name with call_*, reflection, variable class 
> names and other runtime constructs. You can use shortcuts with static 
> constructs - where you specify the class name explicitly.

now that last point is darn good raw material for an upcoming namespaces
guideline, don't mind if I pinch it do you?