RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1 (Or How to break tousands of apps out there)

Can someone explain why you wouldn't want private and/or protected classes within a namespace? I imagine it would be due to problems with implementation... thanks for an explanation. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:helly@php.net] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 12:26 PM To: Jessie Hernandez Cc: internals@lists.php.net Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1 (Or How to break tousands of apps out there) Hello Jessie, yes and no. During 5.0 development i had private and protected inheritance already and we voted against them. So i think we would vote against private classes in namespaces as well. regards marcus Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:19:32 PM, you wrote: > Marcus, > In my patch, you can define the class as "private" inside the namespace, so > it could only be derived by classes inside the same namespace > (using/instantiating outside will trigger an error). This might solve your > problem. > Regards, > Jessie > "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net> wrote in message > news:1566675926.20051128211132@marcus-boerger.de... >> Hello Stanislav, >> >> Monday, November 28, 2005, 9:10:55 PM, you wrote: >> >> MB>>>'Config' or 'Setup' or alike then. But if i'd do >> MB>>>that i'd be missing >> MB>>>features like static classes.... the php workaround would be > 'abstract >> MB>>>final class'. Only: >> >> > Why should it be final? Extending it won't do any problem AFAIU. >> >> If it is not final you could derive the config class and then instanciate >> it. Static classes which nicely fit into configuration stuff can never be >> instanciated. >> >> Best regards, >> Marcus Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php