I simply want to name a method in my class list(). If I try and do so:
class MyClass {
function list () {
// Do some stuff here
}
}
...I get a parse error (Unexpected T_STRING...). The same is true if I use echo or print - so I am guessing that I am not allowed to name a class method the same as a language construct, and while I cannot find any documentation that explicitly states this to be the case, I suppose it does make sense.
My question is, does anyone know of a work around to this, that will work in PHP 4.3.10? I know this can be done in PHP 5.3+ with closures (or I assume it can, I haven't actually tried) No versions of PHP to date support doing this with closures, but can anyone think of a work-around that does not rely on this, baring in mind that it is the method name that is important here?
EDIT N.B.
I am fully aware of how ancient and dead PHP4 is, but I have no option for this particular project. It is to be run on a platform distributed with PHP 4.3.10, which is a very low resource BusyBox platform with a MIPS processor, for which no compilers are provided. I have managed to create a cross-compiler and successfully build PHP 5.2 for it (I haven't tried 5.3 yet, it would probably involve compiling a newer Apache as well) but regardless of this, the manufacturer insist that this invalidates their warranty.
The dilemma you face will stay until you choose A or B.
A: Choose another function name, one that is not a reserved word.
B: Change PHP so that it provides the language features you need.
__call is not available in PHP 4. list is a reserved word since long time.
And you have not outlined what your specific problem with the class interface is, so I don't see much room for more alternatives.
As B does not look like a real option here, you need to take A.
Hope this helps that you can come to a conclusion.
Reserved keywords are reserved:
you cannot use any of the following words as constants, class names, function or method names
So rename your methods.
You've got two options.
1) rename your method. Unless there's a real reason you can justify your method's name then this is the one you should do.
2) namespace your class. If you wrap your class in its own namespace then you can reuse names that are normally reserved or predefined functions, or defined elsewhere. However you should only use this approach if you know what you're doing, otherwise you can end up causing a lot of confusion.
I'd opt for option 1 unless you have a really really compelling reason why your method name must have the same name as a PHP reserved word.
EDIT: You're using PHP 4 so option 2 is off the table. Your only choice is using a different name for your method. That, or upgrade to PHP 5.3. Even if you don't go with namespacing in the end I'd strongly advise upgrading to PHP 5.3 anyway, as PHP 4 is dead and has been for a long time. There will be no security patches released for it ever again so by running it you're basically making your server very insecure.
Kind of a dirty hack, but you could use the magic methods. PHP4 doesn't really support the __call like php5 does, but it could work with the 'overload' construct. I haven't tested this so I can't be sure..
( http://php.net/manual/en/function.overload.php )
class MyClass {
function __call($func, $args){
if ($func == 'list')
return $this->_list($args);
}
function _list () {
// Do some stuff here
}
}
overload('MyClass');
$myclass = new MyClass();
$myclass->list();
Related
I am writing a PHP extension in C, and I would like to put the classes, functions, and variables I am creating in a namespace. I have not been able to find anything in the extension documentation regarding namespaces. To be clear, I want the equivalent of
namespace MyNamespace{
class MyClass{
}
}
but in a C extension. More specifically, I am looking for a function or macro in the Zend C API that allows me to assign a PHP namespace to a class or function I have written in C. Is this possible?
Putting a class in a namespace is very simple. Where normally you would initialize a class with
zend_class_entry ce;
INIT_CLASS_ENTRY(ce, "MyClass", my_class_methods);
instead write the second line as
INIT_CLASS_ENTRY(ce, "MyNamespace\\MyClass", my_class_methods);
The namespace does not need to be included in the method declarations or in the members of the my_class_methods array to properly match them with the class.
To use Namespaces in PHP extensions, you are basically just putting a prefix in front of the class or function name.
I'm not really a PHP internals developer, so the specifics are not entirely clear to me how this works, unfortunately there is very, very little information online that I could find about this as well (I really put Google through it's paces), and the article below is the best I could find.
However, it seems this article hints at the correct solution, which seems to be, that when you register the function with the Zend engine/PHP internals, you do so like "myNS\\MyFunc" and it should then be accessible from the myNS defined there. I would try out a few different variations with this, and see how far that gets you.
Your best option would be to ask in #php-internals on Freenode (if you can get an invitation) or on the PHP Mailing list.
If you manage to find a solution, the Internet seems to be in need of a good article on how one would accomplish this.
Source http://www.php-cpp.com/documentation/namespaces
A namespace is nothing else than a class or function prefix. If you want your classes or functions to appear in a specific namespace, you simply have to add a prefix to the class or function name....
Update: I've updated my answer to try to be more clear. I'm sorry it took so long, I originally replied from my Phone while I was traveling, with every intention of coming back and responding to your original comment, but I genuinely forgot about it until I got a notification from SO about comments. My apologies.
Last time i checked (2008) annotations in php weren't so wide spread. Now after reading some material and having done some "googling", i am still a little confused. Could someone provide a minimal working example that illustrates how to use annotations in php:
Lets just say i want something like this to work:
class ClassName
{
/**
* #DefaultValue("test")
*/
public $prop;
}
// so that i can do
$kls = new ClassName();
$kls->prop // => test
I havent done php in a long while
UPDATE
The purpose of this question is to understand how libraries/frameworks like symfony,flow3 and doctrine implement their annotations.
Annotations are not (yet) supported by PHP. There is an RFC for a proposed implementation, but it's still unknown if or when would that happen.
The particular example that you've given might be interpreted by an IDE as a value to auto-complete and otherwise you can just do public $prop = 'Test';, but I guess you already know that and it's not your real intention.
In PHP Manual -> Function Reference Variable and Type Related Extensions -> Reflection, exists a method getDocComment() in several reflection classes (ReflectionClass, ReflectionMethod, ReflectionFunction, ReflectionFunctionAbstract, ReflectionProperty...) where you can get the doc comment block. Then process your comment the way you want. Example:
class Foo {
private $a;
private $b;
...
/**
* #annotation('baz')
*/
public function bar() {
...
}
}
$reflMethod = new ReflectionMethod('Foo', 'bar');
//prints
//string(26) "/**
// * #annotation('baz')
// */"
var_dump($reflMethod->getDocComment());
PHP Shouldn't support annotations, they're a scourge among PHP developers at the moment. They cause many problems:
They break version control. If you want two differently configured instances of an object in different projects they become different branches even though it's the configuration that's changed and not the logic.
They reduce portability. If you move a class around between two projects that use annotations, the annotations may break the second project
They break encapsulation. The application code shouldn't be concerned with how it will be used externally. Annotations tell the client code what it should be doing rather than letting the client code decide. In your #DefaultValue example, what if you use the class somewhere that isn't paying attention to the annotation? Will the class work anyway if the default value hasn't been set? Yes? No? Maybe? Whatever the answer, it's not clear in the API and there's no way to know whether the object, once constructed is ready to fulfil its responsibilities.
They limit flexibility. Using Symfony's #Inject as an example, it's impossible to create two instances of the class with different injected parameters .
See: Annotations are an abomination and PHP Annotations Are a Horrible Idea for a more detailed explanation of why they should be avoided.
PHP doesn't support annotations (yet).
The only place I've used annotations in PHP that affect code flow is in phpUnit, which supports a number of annotation markers (eg #DataProvider and #ExpectedException) for handling various aspects of the test script.
That works fairly well, but isn't handled by PHP natively; phpUnit has to parse the script itself before including it and running the code normally. Fair enough for a unit test script, but not an ideal solution for a production system.
So I think the real answer is that you'll have to wait until PHP implements annotations natively. I believe there's a proposal for it, but it certainly isn't going to happen any time soon -- it's definitely not going to be in 5.5, which will be released next year. I don't think there are any fixed plans for the features in 5.6 or beyond, but if we're stretching out into at least 2014 for that, even assuming your hosting provider or server admins are willing to upgrade immediately.
Yes, PHP doesn't support annotations yet, but we can rather use Doctrine Annotations. Have a look - https://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/annotations.html
I'm writing a bunch of generic-but-related functions to be used by different objects. I want to group the functions, but am not sure if I should put them in a class or simply a flat library file.
Treating them like a class doesn't seem right, as there is no one kind of object that will use them and such a class containing all these functions may not necessarily have any properties.
Treating them as a flat library file seems too simple, for lack of a better word.
What is the best practice for this?
Check out namespaces:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.namespaces.rationale.php
Wrapping them in a useless class is a workaround implementation of the concept of a namespace. This concept allows you to avoid collisions with other functions in large projects or plugin/module type deployments.
EDIT
Stuck with PHP 5.2?
There's nothing wrong with using a separate file(s) to organize utility functions. Just be sure to document them with comments so you don't end up with bunchafunctions.php, a 20,000 file of procedural code of dubious purpose.
There's also nothing wrong with prefixes. Using prefixes is another way to organize like-purpose functions, but be sure to avoid these "pseudo-namespaces" already reserved by the language. Specifically, "__" is reserved as a prefix by PHP [reference]. To be extra careful, you can also wrap your function declarations in function_exists checks, if you're concerned about conflicting functions from other libraries:
if (!function_exists('myFunction')) {
function myFunction() {
//code
}
}
You can also re-consider your object structure, maybe these utility functions would be more appropriate as methods in a base class that all the other objects can extend. Take a look at inheritance: http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.inheritance.php. The base class pattern is a common and very useful one:
abstract class baseObject {
protected function doSomething () {
print 'foo bar';
}
public function getSomething () {
return 'bar foo';
}
}
class foo extends baseObject {
public function bar () {
$this->doSomething();
}
}
$myObject = new foo();
$myObject->bar();
echo $myObject->getSomething();
You can experiment with the above code here: http://codepad.org/neRtgkcQ
I would usually stick them in a class anyway and mark the methods static. You might call it a static class, even though PHP actually has no such thing (you can't put the static keyword in front of a class). It's still better than having the functions globally because you avoid possible naming conflicts. The class becomes a sort of namespace, but PHP also has its own namespace which may be better suited to your purpose.
You might even find later that there are indeed properties you can add, even if they too are static, such as lazy-loaded helper objects, cached information, etc.
I'd use classes with static methods in such case:
class Tools {
static public function myMethod() {
return 1*1;
}
}
echo Tools::myMethod();
EDIT
As already mentioned by Chris and yes123: if the hoster already runs PHP 5.3+, you should consider using namespace. I'd recommend a read of Matthew Weier O'Phinney's article Why PHP Namespaces Matter, if you're not sure if it's worth switching to namespaces.
EDIT
Even though the ones generalizing usage of static methods as "bad practice" or "nonsense" did not explain why they consider it to be as such - which imo would've been more constructive - they still made me rethinking and rereading.
The typical arguments will be, that static methods can create dependencies and because of that can make unit testing and class renaming impossible.
If unit testing isn't used at all (maybe programming for home/personal use, or low-budget projects, where no one is willing to pay the extra costs of unit testing implementations) this argument becomes obsolete, of course.
Even if unit testing is used, creation of static methods dependencies can be avoided by using $var::myMethod(). So you still could use mocks and rename the class...
Nevertheless I came to the conclusion that my answer is way too generalized.
I think I better should've wrote: It depends.
As this most likely would result in an open ended debate of pros and cons of all the different solutions technically possible, and of dozens of possible scenarios and environments, I'm not willing going into this.
I upvoted Chris' answer now. It already covers most technical possibilities and should serve you well.
Treating them as a class does give you the benefit of a namespace, though you could achieve the same thing by prefixing them like PHP does with the array_* functions. Since you don't have any properties, that basically implies that all your methods are static (as Class::method()). This isn't an uncommon practice in Java.
By using a class, you also have the ability, if necessary, to inherit from a parent class or interface. An example of this might be class constants defined for error codes your functions might return.
EDIT: If PHP 5.3+ is available, the Namespace feature is ideal. However, PHP versions still lag in a lot of hosts and servers, especially those running enterprise-stable Linux distributions.
I've seen it a few different ways, all have their warts but all worked for the particular project in which they were utilized.
one file with all of the functions
one file with each function as its own class
one massive utilities class with all of the methods
one utils.php file that includes files in utils folder with each
function in its own file
Yes, it's OK formally... As any class is methods + properties. But when you pack in class just some functions -- it`s become not ideal OOP. If you have bunch of functions, that groupped, but not used some class variables -- it' seems, that you have somewhere a design problem.
My current feeling here is "Huston, we have a problem".
If you use exactly functions, there one reason to wrap them in static class - autoloader.
Of course, it creates high coupling, and it's may to be bad for testing (not always), but... Simple functions are not better than static class in this case :) Same high coupling, etc.
In ideal OOP architecture, all functions will be methods of some objects. It's just utopia, but we should to build architecture as close as we can to ideal.
Writing a bunch of "generic-but-related" functions is usually bad idea. Most likely you don't see problem clear enough to create proper objects.
It is bad idea not because it is "not ideal OOP". It is not OOP at all.
"The base class pattern" brought by Chris is another bad idea - google for: "favor composition over inheritance".
"beeing extra careful" with function_exists('myFunction') is not but idea. It is a nightmare.
This kind of code is currently avoided even in modern javascript...
PHP's __autoload() (documentation) is pretty interesting to me. Here's how it works:
You try to use a class, like new Toast_Mitten()(footnote1)
The class hasn't been loaded into memory. PHP pulls back its fist to sock you with an error.
It pauses. "Wait," it says. "There's an __autoload() function defined." It runs it.
In that function, you have somehow mapped the string Toast_Mitten to classes/toast_mitten.php and told it to require that file. It does.
Now the class is in memory and your program keeps running.
Memory benefit: you only load the classes you need. Terseness benefit: you can stop including so many files everywhere and just include your autoloader.
Things get particularly interesting if
1) Your __autoload() has an automatic way of determining the file path and name from the class name. For instance, maybe all your classes are in classes/ and Toast_Mitten will be in classes/toast_mitten.php. Or maybe you name classes like Animal_Mammal_Weasel, which will be in classes/animal/mammal/animal_mammal_weasel.php.
2) You use a factory method to get instances of your class.
$Mitten = Mitten::factory('toast');
The Mitten::factory method can say to itself, "let's see, do I have a subclass called Toast_Mitten()? If so, I'll return that; if not, I'll just return a generic instance of myself - a standard mitten. Oh, look! __autoload() tells me there is a special class for toast. OK, here's an instance!"
Therefore, you can start out using a generic mitten throughout your code, and when the day comes that you need special behavior for toast, you just create that class and bam! - your code is using it.
My question is twofold:
(Fact) Do other languages have similar constructs? I see that Ruby has an autoload, but it seems that you have to specify in a given script which classes you expect to use it on.
(Opinion) Is this too magical? If your favorite language doesn't do this, do you think, "hey nifty, we should have that" or "man I'm glad Language X isn't that sloppy?"
1 My apologies to non-native English speakers. This is a small joke. There is no such thing as a "toast mitten," as far as I know. If there were, it would be a mitten for picking up hot toast. Perhaps you have toast mittens in your own country?
Both Ruby and PHP get it from AUTOLOAD in Perl.
http://perldoc.perl.org/perltoot.html#AUTOLOAD:-Proxy-Methods
http://perldoc.perl.org/AutoLoader.html
Note that the AutoLoader module is a set of helpers for common tasks using the AUTOLOAD functionality.
Do not use __autoload(). It's a global thing so, by definition, it's somewhat evil. Instead, use spl_autoload_register() to register yet another autoloader to your system. This allows you to use several autoloaders, what is pretty common practice.
Respect existing conventions. Every part of namespaced class name is a directory, so new MyProject\IO\FileReader(); should be in MyProject/IO/FileReader.php file.
Magic is evil!
The Mitten::factory method can say to itself, "let's see, do I have a subclass called Toast_Mitten()? If so, I'll return that; if not, I'll just return a generic instance of myself - a standard mitten. Oh, look! __autoload() tells me there is a special class for toast. OK, here's an instance!"
Rather such tricky code, use simple and verbose one:
try {
$mitten = new ToastMitten();
// or $mitten = Mitten::factory('toast');
} catch (ClassNotFoundException $cnfe) {
$mitten = new BaseMitten();
}
I think this feature comes in very handy, and I have not seen any features like it else where. Nor have I needed these features else where.
Java has something similar. It's called a ClassLoader. Probably other languages too, but they stick with some default implementation.
And, while we're at this. It would have been nice if __autoload loaded any type of symbols, not just classes: constants, functions and classes.
See Ruby's Module#const_missing
I just learned this: Ruby has a method on Module called const_missing that gets called if you call Foo::Bar and Bar isn't in memory yet (although I suppose that Foo has to be in memory).
This example in ruby-doc.org shows a way to use that to implement an autoloader for that module. This is in fact what Rails uses to load new ActiveRecord model classes, according to "Eloquent Ruby" by Russ Olsen (Chapter 21, "Use method_missing for flexible error handling", which also covers const_missing).
It's able to do this because of the "convention over configuration" mindset: if you reference a model called ToastMitten, if it exists, it will be in app/models/toast_mitten.rb. If you could put that model any place you wanted, Rails wouldn't know where to look for it. Even if you're not using Rails, this example, and point #1 in my question, shows how useful it can be to follow conventions, even if you create them yourself.
I'm maintaining library written for PHP 5.2 and I'd like to create PHP 5.3-namespaced version of it. However, I'd also keep non-namespaced version up to date until PHP 5.3 becomes so old, that even Debian stable ships it ;)
I've got rather clean code, about 80 classes following Project_Directory_Filename naming scheme (I'd change them to \Project\Directory\Filename of course) and only few functions and constants (also prefixed with project name).
Question is: what's the best way to develop namespaced and non-namespaced versions in parallel?
Should I just create fork in repository and keep merging changes between branches? Are there cases where backslash-sprinkled code becomes hard to merge?
Should I write script that converts 5.2 version to 5.3 or vice-versa? Should I use PHP tokenizer? sed? C preprocessor?
Is there a better way to use namespaces where available and keep backwards compatibility with older PHP?
Update: Decided against use of namespaces after all.
I don't think preprocessing the 5.3 code this is a great idea. If your code is functionally identical in both PHP 5.2 and 5.3 with the exception of using namespaces, instead of underscore-separated prefixes, why use namespaces at all? In that case it sounds to me like you want to use namespaces, for the sake of using namespaces..
I do think you'll find that as you migrate to namespaces, you will start to 'think a bit differently' about organizing your code.
For this reason, I strongly agree with your first solution. Create a fork and do backports of features and bugfixes.
Good luck!
This is a followup to my previous answer:
The namespace simulation code got quite stable. I already can get symfony2 to work (some problems still, but basically). Though there is still some stuff missing like variable namespace resolution for all cases apart from new $class.
Now I wrote a script which will iterate recursively through a directory and process all files: http://github.com/nikic/prephp/blob/master/prephp/namespacePortR.php
Usage Instructions
Requirements for your code to work
Your classnames mustn't contain the _ character. If they do, classnames could get ambiguous while converting.
Your code mustn't redeclare any global functions or constants within a namespace. Thus it is ensured that all your code may be resolved at compile-time.
Basically these are the only restrictions to your code. Though I should note that in a default configuration the namespacePortR will not resolve things like $className = 'Some\\NS\\Class'; new $className, because it would require inserting additional code. It's better that this is patched up later (either manually or using an automated patching system.)
Configuration
As we have made the assumption that no global function or constant is redeclared in a namespace you must set the assumeGlobal class constant in the namespace listener. In the same file set the SEPARATOR constant to _.
In the namespacePortR change the configuration block to satisfy your needs.
PS: The script may be provided a ?skip=int option. This tells it to skip the first int files. You should not need it, if you have set the override mode to intelligent.
Here's what I've found:
Doing this with regular expressions is a nightmare. You can get most of it done with just a few simple expressions, but then edge cases are a killer. I've ended up with horrible, fragile mess that barely works with one codebase.
It's doable with built-in tokenizer and simple recursive descent parser that handles only simplified subset of the language.
I've ended up with rather ugly design (parser and transformer in one – mostly just changing or re-emitting tokens), because it seemed too much work to build useful syntax tree with whitespace maintained (I wanted resulting code to be human-readable).
I wanted to try phc for this, but couldn't convince its configure that I have built required version of Boost library.
I haven't tried ANTLR for this yet, but it's probably the best tool for that kind of tasks.
I am working on a project that emulates PHP 5.3 on PHP 5.2: prephp. It includes namespace support (not yet complete though.)
Now, out of the experience of writing this there is one ambiguity problem in namespace resolution: Unqualified function calls and constant lookups have a fallback to the global namespace. So you could convert your code automatically only if you either fully qualified or qualified all your function calls/constant lookups or if you didn't redefine any function or constant in a namespace with the same name as a PHP built in function.
If you strictly adhered to this practice (whichever of them you choose) it would be fairly easy to convert your code. It would be a subset of the code for emulating namespaces in prephp. If you need help with the implementation, fell free to ask me, I would be interested ;)
PS: The namespace emulation code of prephp isn't complete yet and may be buggy. But it may give you some insights.
Here's the best answer I think you're going to be able to find:
Step 1: Create a directory called 5.3 for every directory w/ php5.3 code in it and stick all 5.3-specific code in it.
Step 2: Take a class you want to put in a namespace and do this in 5.3/WebPage/Consolidator.inc.php:
namespace WebPage;
require_once 'WebPageConsolidator.inc.php';
class Consolidator extends \WebpageConsolidator
{
public function __constructor()
{
echo "PHP 5.3 constructor.\n";
parent::__constructor();
}
}
Step 3: Use a strategy function to use the new PHP 5.3 code. Place in non-PHP5.3 findclass.inc.php:
// Copyright 2010-08-10 Theodore R. Smith <phpexperts.pro>
// License: BSD License
function findProperClass($className)
{
$namespaces = array('WebPage');
$namespaceChar = '';
if (PHP_VERSION_ID >= 50300)
{
// Search with Namespaces
foreach ($namespaces as $namespace)
{
$className = "$namespace\\$className";
if (class_exists($className))
{
return $className;
}
}
$namespaceChar = "\\";
}
// It wasn't found in the namespaces (or we're using 5.2), let's search global namespace:
foreach ($namespaces as $namespace)
{
$className = "$namespaceChar$namespace$className";
if (class_exists($className))
{
return $className;
}
}
throw new RuntimeException("Could not load find a suitable class named $className.");
}
Step 4: Rewrite your code to look like this:
<?php
require 'findclass.inc.php';
$includePrefix = '';
if (PHP_VERSION_ID >= 50300)
{
$includePrefix = '5.3/';
}
require_once $includePrefix . 'WebPageConsolidator.inc.php';
$className = findProperClass('Consolidator');
$consolidator = new $className;
// PHP 5.2 output: PHP 5.2 constructor.
// PHP 5.3 output: PHP 5.3 constructor. PHP 5.2 constructor.
That will work for you. It is a cludge performance-wise, but just a little, and will be done away with when you decide to stop supporting 5.3.
What I did, with a large codebase that used the underscore naming convention (among others), and require_once a whole lot in lieu of an autoloader, was to define an autoloader, and add class_alias lines in the files defining aliases to a classes old name after changing their names to be nice with namespaces.
I then started removing require_once statements where execution was not dependent on inclusion order, since the autoloader would pick stuff up, and namespace stuff as I went along fixing bugs and so on.
It's worked quite well so far.
Well, I don't know if it is the "best" way, but in theory, you could use a script to take your 5.3 migrate code and backport it into 5.2 (potentially even using PHP).
On your namespace files you would want to do something convert:
namespace \Project\Directory\Filename;
class MyClass {
public $attribute;
public function typedFunction(MyClass $child) {
if ($child instanceof MyClass) {
print 'Is MyClass';
}
}
}
To something like:
class Project_Directory_Filename_MyClass {
public $attribute;
public function typedFunction(Project_Directory_Filename_MyClass $child) {
if ($child instanceof Project_Directory_Filename_MyClass) {
print 'Is MyClass';
}
}
}
And in your namespace code you would need to convert from:
$myobject = new Project\Directory\Filename\MyClass();
To:
$myobject = new Project_Directory_Filename_MyClass();
While all your includes and requires would stay the same, I think you would almost need to keep some sort of Cache of all your classes and namespace to do the complex conversion around the 'instanceof' and typed parameters if you use them. That is the trickiest thing I can see.
I haven't tested this on my own, but you may take a look on this php 5.2 -> php 5.3 conversion script.
It's is not the same as 5.3 -> 5.2, but maybe you will find some useful stuff there.
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit can likely implement your solution pretty well. It is designed to carry out reliable source code transformations, by using AST to AST transforms coded in surface-syntax terms.
It has a PHP Front End which is a full, precise PHP parser, AST builder, and AST to PHP-code regenerator. DMS provides for AST prettyprinting, or fidelity printing ("preserve column numbers where possible").
This combination has been used to implement a variety of trustworthy PHP source code manipulation tools for PHP 4 and 5.
EDIT (in response to a somewhat disbelieving comment):
For the OP's solution, the following DMS transformation rule should do most of the work:
rule replace_underscored_identifier_with_namespace_path(namespace_path:N)
:namespace_path->namespace_path
"\N" -> "\complex_namespace_path\(\N\)"
if N=="NCLASS_OR_NAMESPACE_IDENTIFIER" && has_underscores(N);
This rule finds all "simple" identifiers that are used where namespace paths are allowed,
and replaces those simple identifiers with the corresponding namespace path constructed
by tearing the string for the identifier apart into consitutent elements separated by underscores. One has to code some procedural help
in DMS's implementation langauge, PARLANSE, to check that the identifier contains underscores ("has_underscores"), and to implement the tear apart logic by building the corresponding namespace path subtree ("complex_namespace_path").
The rule works by abstractly identifying trees that correspond to language nonterminals (in this case, "namespace_path", and replacing simple ones by more complex trees that represent the full name space path. The rule is written as text, but the rule itself is parsed by DMS to construct the trees it needs to match PHP trees.
DMS rule application logic can trivially apply this rule everywhere throughout the AST produced by the PHP parser.
This answer may seem overly simple in the face of all the complicated stuff that makes up the PHP langauge, but all that other complexity is hidden in the PHP langauge definition used by DMS; that definition is some 10,000 lines of lexical and grammar definitions, but is already tested and working. All the DMS machinery, and these 10K lines, are indications of why simple regexes can't do the job reliably. (It is surprising how much machinery it takes to get this right; I've been working on DMS since 1995).
If you want to see all the machinery that makes up how DMS defines/manipulates a language, you can see a nice simple example.