> true, however i have a counter example: classes from more general namespace > that use further nested classes (think some kind of behaviour and different > drivers/plugins for example). > so while it's true that more nested classes usually extend the less nested > ones it also common for more generic code to use it's namespace descendants. > in sutch condition possibility to use just the remaining namespace part is a > big help and i'd say it's usage would be more comon than single "extends" at > class definition where you're obligated to supply FQN [1]. The more generic code (i.e. application code) is located usually in its own namespace, so it must use FQN. FQN with leading backslash. DG. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?7,3192,3192#msg-3192 Mon, 20 May 2013 07:05:06 +0200 Phorum 5.2.18 http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?7,3192,3192#msg-3192 http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?7,3192,3192#msg-3192 > that use further nested classes (think some kind of behaviour and different
> drivers/plugins for example).

> so while it's true that more nested classes usually extend the less nested
> ones it also common for more generic code to use it's namespace descendants.
> in sutch condition possibility to use just the remaining namespace part is a
> big help and i'd say it's usage would be more comon than single "extends" at
> class definition where you're obligated to supply FQN [1].

The more generic code (i.e. application code) is located usually in its own namespace, so it must use FQN. FQN with leading backslash.

DG.


--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php]]> David Grudl php-internals Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:55:01 +0100