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
In-Reply-To: <001b01c640ef$c4689ef0$6e02a8c0@thinkpad>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0603060849140.10670@localhost>
References: <001b01c640ef$c4689ef0$6e02a8c0@thinkpad>
X-Face:
"L'&?Ah3MYF@FB4hU'XhNhLB]222(Lbr2Y@F:GE[OO;"F5p>qtFBl|yVVA&D{A(g3[C}mG:199P+5C'v.M/u@Z\![0b:Mv.[l6[uWl'
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Thread (15 messages)