Re: [PATCH] Late Static Binding (Take 2)

From: Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:18:24 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Late Static Binding (Take 2)
References: 1 2 3  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message
I'd still say we make it "this". It's reasonable and consistent.

- David



Am 09.03.2006 um 01:13 schrieb Andi Gutmans:

This patch is a bit rough. I'll try and think if there's a more elegant way. Andi At 01:06 PM 3/8/2006, Mike Lively wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 17:37 +0300, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
1) I would very like to see some real example where "static" is
necessary?
2) "static" is really bad name. I suggest "caller", Marcus
thought about
"class". 3) I COMPLETELY DISAGREE TO ADD RUNTIME DATA INTO zend_function/zend_op_array. We can try to store "caller_scope" in execute_data. Thanks. Dmitry.
Rewrote the patch to use execute_data to store caller_scope. I have not renamed any functions or keywords (still using static::) as I did not see any consensus on that yet. Please review the implementation of caller_scope and I can take care of the naming issues when names are decided on. patch attached and also available at http://test.ft11.net/_mlively/late-static-binding.patch It would be nice if the patch in PAT could be changed to reference this new version if the appropriate people have time.
--PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php


Thread (59 messages)

« previous php.internals (#22263) next »