At 14:52 05.04.2003, Andi Gutmans wrote:At 01:12 PM 4/5/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:At 18:07 04.04.2003, Andrei Zmievski wrote:On Fri, 04 Apr 2003, Derick Rethans wrote: > > Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage. > > Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
<vent> sometimes I just hate BC.. </vent>
Sometimes as in this case BC means sticking to "it's not a bug it's a feature".
In PHP 4 oo was nothing more than structures with a not thought out possibility
to attach normal functions.
Since we now seem to reach a very good oo level, why shouldn't we remove such
crap? I mean every code that uses oo will be rewritten anyway.
Marcus,
You and all the rest who want to break BC on this issue are welcome to use static in your code.
IMO, nothing prevents you from writing nice OO code. It's not as if this is forcing you not to use static.
I know :-)
The reason not only i want to break BC here is to prevent users from shooting in their knees and
blaming php for the erors in bug-reports later.
Let's leave this to the documentation team. We should encourage the use of "static" for static methods.
Andi
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
