Hello Stanislav,
nothing really. I only think that it is easier to have the consts in
the namespace then in an extra class. I probably would call the class
'Config' or 'Setup' or alike then. But if i'd do that i'd be missing
features like static classes.... the php workaround would be 'abstract
final class'. Only:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/src/php-cvs $ php -r 'abstract final class Config {
const XXX = 42; }'
make: `sapi/cli/php' is up to date.
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_FINAL, expecting T_CLASS in Command
line code on line 1
regards
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:00:02 PM, you wrote:
MB>>>namespace Foo
MB>>>{
> class Behaviour {
MB>>> const XYZ = 42;
> }
MB>>> class Bar
MB>>> {
MB>>> const XXXX = Foo::XYZ;
> const XXXX = Behaviour::XYZ;
MB>>> //...
MB>>> }
> etc. What's wrong with that? Except for the fact that now you can move
> these classes to another namespace if you wanted to and need not to
> hardcode namespace name in each class? :)
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115
Best regards,
Marcus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
