Re: simple solution to another namespace conundrum?

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > Derick Rethans wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote: > > > > > it won't be a serious 'wtf', as on the top of the file, there > > > would be some kind of use MySuperLibrary::DateTime; > > > > I know, but 400 lines down in the code you can't really see that. > > This addition might fix the immediate issue - but it doesn't make > > life easier for the developers that have to maintain the code. Even > > less if they're not aware that stuff is namespaced. > > If we don't allow it to work this way, then I really don't see the > point in namespaces at all, which I assume is the point you are trying > to make. Actually, the point that I was trying to make is that we instead of encouraging this confusion, we should put somewhere in our userland nameing guidelines that you still would need to provide a prefix to your (aliased) classnames in order to prevent confusion. But that then seriously means I see no real good reason still why people want namespaces with confusing resolving rules (concerning static methods like Greg points out). regards, Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org