Re: [PATCH] Late Static Binding

From: Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:32:24 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Late Static Binding
References: 1 2  Groups: php.internals php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message 

final::foo();




Dmitry Stogov wrote:



-----Original Message-----
From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:51 AM
To: Dmitry Stogov; 'Marcus Boerger'; 'Mike Lively'
Cc: 'PHP-DEV'
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Late Static Binding


At 06:37 AM 3/1/2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:

1) I would very like to see some real example where "static" is necessary?

It's needed when you implement a convention based system where the name of the Class has a meaning. For example in an OORDBMS mapping system, the name of the class could be the table name.


2) "static" is really bad name. I suggest "caller", Marcus thought about "class".

Yeah static is very confusing and I think it's a bad idea.

I'm trying to think what a non-confusing way would be. Some ideas would be:
a) using "class" e.g. class::method()
b) change behavior of self:: to always be "virtual" and have people use class_name::method()

Any other ideas?


static::foo()

class::foo()

caller::foo()

owner::foo()

Thanks. Dmitry.


I think we should solve this issue but let's brainstorm and find the right way, both syntax wise and implementation wise (without breaking opcode caches).

Andi

Thread (59 messages)

« previous php.internals (#22078) next »