Can I look into patch?
Dmitry.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:01 PM
> To: PHP-DEV
> Cc: Andi Gutmans; Mike Lively
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Late Static Binding
>
>
> Hello internals,
>
> it looks like either nobody objects or nobody has
> interest. Either way i tested the patch and worked helped it
> a bit and it looks good, doesn't affect anything else and
> doesn't show a single problem in valgrind. So If noone
> objects i will commit this next week.
>
> regards
> marcus
>
> special mail to andi :-)
>
>
> Thursday, February 23, 2006, 11:06:02 PM, you wrote:
>
> > I have finished a patch that implements a working version of late
> > static binding.
>
> > I used the notes from the Paris PDM as my guidelines for
> > implementation.
> >
> (http://www.php.net/~derick/meeting-notes.html#late-static-bin
ding-using-this-without-or-perhaps-with-a-different-name)
> > As requested in the notes I reused 'static::'. I also wrote
> a few tests
> > not only to test the new functionality but also to make
> sure 'static' can't be inherited or extended.
>
> > I also added a new function get_caller_class() which
> returns the name
> > of the class that static:: would represent.
>
> > (borrowing from PDM notes)
> > In php5.* the following script outputs "A::static2":
>
> > <?php
> > class A {
> > static function staticA() {
> > self::static2();
> > }
>
> > static function static2() {
> > echo "A::static2\n";
> > }
> > }
>
> > class B extends A {
> > static function static2() {
> > echo "B::static2\n";
> > }
> > }
>
> > B::staticA();
> ?>>
>
> > This has somewhat recently been highlighted by different
> developers to
> > be somewhat problematic behavior in creating user friendly APIs. If
> > you want to see a possible use for it you need look no further than
> > the example ZActiveRecord API that was used in their webcast with
> > php|arch.
> >
> (http://blog.joshuaeichorn.com/archives/2006/01/09/zactivereco
> rd-cant-work/)
> > Currently the code laid out there is impossible short of
> some ugly use of
> > debug_backtrace() and file parsing :/. This patch of course
> would allow that kind of code too exist.
>
> > In a small example based on the one I gave earlier you could change
> > the code too the following and have it print "B::static2":
>
> > <?php
> > class A {
> > static function staticA() {
> > static::static2();
> > }
>
> > static function static2() {
> > echo "A::static2\n";
> > }
> > }
>
> > class B extends A {
> > static function static2() {
> > echo "B::static2\n";
> > }
> > }
>
> > B::staticA();
> ?>>
>
> > As far as current userland code impact, there is very
> little as far as
> > I can tell. No keywords have been added, just another use for an
> > existing one. No changes were made to self:: or parent:: so
> the change
> > should be pretty transparent. The only thing that I see remotely
> > causing any issues would be the new function
> (get_caller_class().) I
> > added that just to complete the set so to speak.
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
>