Le 24/04/2013 08:15, Martin Keckeis a écrit :
Hello together,
if you got a namespace with more than one functions, why not just create a
container class and make the methods static?
I know it's not exactly the same, but how many times you need this
So you can write:
namespace Abc\Def;
clas
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Florian Anderiasch
wrote:
> Additionally, it's either semantically wrong to group unrelated
> functions in "static tool classes", it's even a well-known antipattern.
It also doesn't address a point made by Igor before:
"It's distracting to have my vendor name
On 04/24/2013 08:15 AM, Martin Keckeis wrote:
> class Something{
> public static function blubb();
>
> public static function blubb2();
> }
>
>
> use Abc\Def\Something;
>
> Something::blubb();
> Something::blubb2();
Yes of course you can do that as an ugly workaround - but I wouldn't
c
Hello together,
if you got a namespace with more than one functions, why not just create a
container class and make the methods static?
I know it's not exactly the same, but how many times you need this
So you can write:
namespace Abc\Def;
class Something{
public static function blubb();
+1
The current behavior is really annoying.
2013/4/22 Florian Anderiasch
> On 04/22/2013 12:55 AM, Robert Stoll wrote:
> > I agree with Igor. The readability could be improved and I do not see the
> > problem of hiding built-in php functions (however, I would not recommend
> > it).
> > I would
On 04/22/2013 12:55 AM, Robert Stoll wrote:
> I agree with Igor. The readability could be improved and I do not see the
> problem of hiding built-in php functions (however, I would not recommend
> it).
> I would say, if someone hides the normal php built-in function then he or
> she is doing that o
