Hi,
Thanks for that.
But actually I don't see: Why is "use" not enough? As far as I can see your
example, why it would introduce a BC, doesn't really match to original
question, why "use function" is used. Especially I don't see any ambiguity:
foo(); // Always a function. You cannot call classes this way
new foo(); // always a class
foo::bar(); // Always a class
But the example I mentioned before
namespace {
function bar() {}}
namespace foo {
function bar() {}}
namespace {
use foo\bar;
bar();}
points to a different problem, which I didn't see solved by adding the
"function"-keyword to "use". Can you clarify this? Because I'd try to avoid
new syntax wherever possible.
Regards,
Sebastian
2013/7/23 Igor Wiedler <i...@wiedler.ch>
> Hi,
>
> Based on Sebastian's feedback I have updated the RFC and the patch to
> include a `use const` sequence that works just like `use function`, but for
> namespaced constants.
>
> Example usage:
>
> namespace foo\bar {
> const baz = 42;
> }
>
> namespace {
> use const foo\bar\baz;
> var_dump(baz);
> }
>
> I also fixed some other issues that the original patch had in the process
> (see commit history). Please keep the feedback coming.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Igor
>
>
--
github.com/KingCrunch
