Req #68593 [Com]: Namespace not resolved at runtime like with static::

Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68593&edit=1 ID: 68593 Comment by: llmll at gmx dot de Reported by: llmll at gmx dot de Summary: Namespace not resolved at runtime like with static:: Status: Duplicate Type: Feature/Change Request Package: Scripting Engine problem Operating System: any PHP Version: Irrelevant Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: Could you please remove the "duplicate" status? I doubt, any developer will look at it otherwise. Previous Comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2014-12-12 09:05:22] llmll at gmx dot de Thanks for your explanation. I appreciate your moderation and tend to think every reported bug should get the same appreciation. What I mean is, that I spent hours with the problem, analyzing, writing code samples, reporting. Getting closed down by a moderator who seemd to got stuck into the mantra "it is never a bug", is quite frustrating. See, how I could understand your handling of bugs as waste of time? Believe me, I only report the serious bugs I come across. So why waste more time? Maybe PHP does what it should, at least it does what it was coded to be done. But I think the current class resolution is a design flaw. I think the documentation was written by someone who understood namespace contexts and interpolated the behaviour correctly on the paper, but didn't verify it with code. That is what I have done. The example with the filesystem is very plausible. Imagine a project directory: /alpha . .. caller.php <- relative symlink to ./helper.php helper.php Now you copy the directory over to another project, lets say /beta . .. caller.php <- still a relative symlink to ./helper.php helper.php Which helper.php file would you expect caller.php to resolve to? /alpha/helper.php or /beta/helper.php? Give me sound reason to _always_ expect it to be /alpha/helper.php and we mark this bug as resolved. Therefore Im reluctant to open a feature request as this would devalue the problem to a nice-to-have thing, while I think it is a must-have. BUT, if this is the best I can get - I'll take it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2014-12-12 00:06:01] requinix@php.net Sorry about the yelling, llmll, it's just that I spent a lot of time trying to explain to you in the other ticket why the "current namespace" is not relative to calling code, then I see you come here and make another ticket on the exact same issue. Makes me think all this is a waste of my time. And since you've stated that you're deliberately refusing to listen to me, maybe it was. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2014-12-11 23:34:11] llmll at gmx dot de How then would you call a namespace resolution that delivers that expected result? At compile time both \Beta\Caller and \Beta\Helper exist. The method in Caller::Write() uses the unqualified class identifier Helper:: to access it's peer class. I think the problem is not between run time and compile time but executing class and defining class. Need proof? If you copy&paste the Write() method into \Beta\Helper, everything works as expected. But thats the whole point in OOP to _not_ copy and paste code, isn't it? Maybe we can convert this matter to a feature request? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2014-12-11 23:21:02] nikic@php.net The current behavior is intended and correct. Class names, including unqualified class names, are always resolved at compile time. The confusion probably comes from the incorrect or at least misleading wording on http://php.net/manual/en/language.namespaces.rules.php. That document conflates name resolution (which is always compile-time for class names) and autoloading (which is the runtime operation). It should probably be clarified (don't know why it even mentions autoloading there - that's not related to name resolution). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2014-12-11 23:09:30] llmll at gmx dot de Hi requinix@php.net, stay calm. A bug is no reason to shout at people. Coding is not a matter of feeling but of precision. There is runtime and there is write-time and there is a big difference which you play down. Why not ponder on the problem, and then admit and correct it? Everybody will benefit from clarification. (I remember doing the same convincing for the necessity of static::, when years ago PHP lacked late static binding and only had the nowadays completely useless self:: operator. In time, people appreciated the late static binding :-)) Now comes the difficult part. In our project we really need to address the current namespace at runtime, as it offered in PHP's documentation. I see no way of explaining the why and how to you, considering your prior reasoning. Just for reference for others, here is how we compensate for it: public static function typeNameOfPeer($aClass) { return static::moduleName() . '\\' . $aClass; } moduleName() returns the current class' namespace. So if we want to call a class dynamically in the current namespace, we need to write: $class = static::typeNameOfPeer('RelativeNameOfClass'); $class::callAMethod(); I was hoping to get in touch with another maintainer. Please don't be offended or take it personally when I request the bug to be transferred to a colleague who knows PHP namespaces and inheritance mechanics. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68593 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68593&edit=1