namespace A {
namespace B{
class C {
function D() { print "asdf\n"; }
}
}
}
B::C::D();
Apparently, the parser allows nesting namespaces, but they are all
registered as global ones. Should be fixed, I think.
-Andrei http://www.gravitonic.com/
Windows 2000 is certified not to crash more than
once a day, so what is the bootup time, 24 hours?
-- Sam Liddicott
Noting to fix. This is by design.
AZ>> namespace A {
AZ>> namespace B{
AZ>> class C {
AZ>> function D() { print "asdf\n"; }
AZ>> }
AZ>> }
AZ>>
AZ>> }
AZ>>
AZ>> B::C::D();
AZ>>
AZ>> Apparently, the parser allows nesting namespaces, but they are all
AZ>> registered as global ones. Should be fixed, I think.
AZ>>
AZ>> -Andrei http://www.gravitonic.com/
AZ>>
AZ>> Windows 2000 is certified not to crash more than
AZ>> once a day, so what is the bootup time, 24 hours?
AZ>> -- Sam Liddicott
AZ>>
AZ>>
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.109
Care to explain a little more? I think allowing this syntax is very
confusing for the user.
I can see the point of this:
namespace A {
class B {
...
}
}
...
namespace A {
class C {
...
}
}
But not in the example below. People would basically expect to have
nested namespaces, which we don't have, so why lead them on?
Noting to fix. This is by design.
AZ>> namespace A {
AZ>> namespace B{
AZ>> class C {
AZ>> function D() { print "asdf\n"; }
AZ>> }
AZ>> }
AZ>>
AZ>> }
AZ>>
AZ>> B::C::D();
AZ>>
AZ>> Apparently, the parser allows nesting namespaces, but they are all
AZ>> registered as global ones. Should be fixed, I think.
-Andrei http://www.gravitonic.com/
- The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. *