Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message
Hello l0t3k,
there is nothing new here besides that fact that now you can also have a
method with the name '__construct' in an interface. Nothing else changed.
marcus
Monday, March 6, 2006, 1:42:50 PM, you wrote:
> This should cause much fun with classes implementing multiple interfaces....> ""Dmitry Stogov"" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:001e01c640f6$efcb7a20$6e02a8c0@thinkpad...>> Well :)>>>> I don't say that the patch is wrong, the question itself is disputable.>>>> PHP doesn't allow multiple constructors, so if some class will implement>> interface with constructor.>> This calss (and all its subcalsses?) will not able to change constructor's>> prototype>>>> Havent we mess with subclasses?>>>> Thanks. Dmitry.>>>>> -----Original Message----->>> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[email protected]]>>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:52 AM>>> To: Dmitry Stogov>>> Cc: 'Marcus Boerger'; [email protected]; Andi Gutmans>>> Subject: RE: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 />>> zend_compile.c php-src/tests/classes>>> ctor_in_interface_01.phpt ctor_in_interface_02.phpt>>> ctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt>>> interface_construct.phpt>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:>>>>>> > Is it your answer to my "break label" patch? :(>>> >>>> > I didn't see final PDM's decision about constructor in>>> interfaces. And>>> > I didn't see any discussion about this, however may be I missed it.>>>>>> The PDM notes say:>>>>>> Issue: Currently it is not possible to define a>>> __construct() signature>>> in an interface.>>>>>> Discussion: We didn't see a reason why this shouldn't>>> be allowed, but>>> Andi seems to have a reason for it.>>>>>> Conclusions:>>>>>> 1. Zeev asks Andi why he doesn't want constructors in the>>> interface. If there is no sound reason we add this>>> possibility.>>>>>> Nothing like that happened... so I guess it's not important enough to>>> Andi anymore? :)>>>>>> > The question about constructors in interfaces is not>>> simple, and both>>> > points of view make sense. So I would like to see your and others>>> > arguments?>>>>>> At the PDM we didn't find *any* reasons why we *don't* allow it... so>>> why not just allow it?>>>>>> Derick>>>>>> -- >>> Derick Rethans>>> http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org>>>>>>
Best regards,
Marcus