# Namespace resolution rules has been changed?

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/41967
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/41967
- Started by David Grudl on 2008-11-17T10:43:57+00:00
- Messages: 1
- Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net
- More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt

---

## #41967 — David Grudl — 2008-11-17T10:43:57+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/41967#41967

> true, however i have a counter example: classes from more general namespace 
> that use further nested classes (think some kind of behaviour and different 
> drivers/plugins for example).

> so while it's true that more nested classes usually extend the less nested 
> ones it also common for more generic code to use it's namespace descendants. 
> in sutch condition possibility to use just the remaining namespace part is a 
> big help and i'd say it's usage would be more comon than single "extends" at 
> class definition where you're obligated to supply FQN [1].

The more generic code (i.e. application code) is located usually in its own namespace, so it must use FQN. FQN with leading backslash.

DG.