Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 / zend_compile.c php-src/tests/classes
ctor_in_interface_01.phpt ctor_in_interface_02.phptctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt interface_construct.phpt

From: Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:15:50 +0000
Subject: Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 / zend_compile.c php-src/tests/classes
ctor_in_interface_01.phpt ctor_in_interface_02.phptctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt interface_construct.phpt
References: 1 2 3  Groups: php.zend-engine.cvs 
Request: Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message
I don't think it's a big deal. Personally, I am not a big fan on enforcing constructor signature found in interfaces. However, if you don't want it enforced you can just not write it so I see no harm in providing this capability.

Marcus, you need to get used to the fact that someone not agreeing with you, doesn't mean he's ignoring you... It's ok to disagree. You see, I even disagree with Dmitry on this one :)

At 01:19 AM 3/6/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Dmitry, this is the whole point! Without this change a framework has no relyable way to enforce a constructor signature becuas it uses the constructors in a certain way. But it seems this argument is being ignored again anyway. marcus Monday, March 6, 2006, 9:54:11 AM, you wrote: The problem is not in user. If some framework defines class that implements interface with constructor. Then user will not able change constructor in his own subclass. But may be this is not a big problem. Dmitry.
-----Original Message----- From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:31 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.phptctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt interface_construct.phpt In-Reply-To: <001e01c640f6$efcb7a20$6e02a8c0@thinkpad> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0603060929020.10670@localhost> References: <001e01c640f6$efcb7a20$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:
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?
But it would be a choice by the developer then of this interface. I don't see why PHP should prevent them from doing this. Personally I would used this in one or two places myself. regards, Derick -- Zend Engine CVS Mailing List (http://cvs.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Best regards, Marcus


Thread (15 messages)

« previous php.zend-engine.cvs (#4697) next »