Hi,
I'm hoping I don't cause yet another flame war about the n-word ;)
I was wondering if namespaces are going to support class visibility, and
if no, would it be worth considering adding that feature? What I mean
exacty is:
In namespace Foo:
public class Foo { }
protected class Bar { }
Nathan Rixham wrote:
thus:
//this is always the function two in namespace one::step
one::step::two();
//this is always the method two of class step in namespace one
one::Step::two();
thoughts, opinions, reasons why it wouldn't work?
Though: this will break a awful lot of existing code
Greg Beaver wrote:
Hi,
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceissues
Read it and discuss. Let's be clear people: the technical problems in
namespaces are limited and solvable. The problems in the political
environment surrounding them may not be. Wouldn't politics be a
stupid-ass reason to remove
Lester Caine wrote:
What would be the advantage of wrapping legacy functions in a
namespace over wrapping them into a class as static functions?
THAT is probably why I am asking the question? And may well be key to
my understanding why converting non OO code into OO code in PHP is so
Tony Bibbs wrote:
This is what I've be fearing. First slated for 5.0. Then 5.3. Now 6.0. It appears
there's consensus to rip it out which, in my prior post, I was all for if people felt it
meant getting it right. Apparently that is the case. I guess my main question is what
keeps this
Stefan Walk wrote:
That would be unclean. If it's implemented in some way, json_encode should
look for the implementation of some interface (JSONEncodable or something)
providing encoding/decoding methods (similar to __sleep/__wakeup).
Looking at our current JSON implementations, such an
