Hello internals, it looks like either nobody objects or nobody has interest. Either way i tested the patch and worked helped it a bit and it looks good, doesn't affect anything else and doesn't show a single problem in valgrind. So If noone objects i will commit this next week.
regards marcus special mail to andi :-) Thursday, February 23, 2006, 11:06:02 PM, you wrote: > I have finished a patch that implements a working version of late static > binding. > I used the notes from the Paris PDM as my guidelines for implementation. > (http://www.php.net/~derick/meeting-notes.html#late-static-binding-using-this-without-or-perhaps-with-a-different-name) > As requested in the notes I reused 'static::'. I also wrote a few tests > not only to test the new functionality but also to make sure 'static' can't > be inherited or extended. > I also added a new function get_caller_class() which returns the name of > the class that static:: would represent. > (borrowing from PDM notes) > In php5.* the following script outputs "A::static2": > <?php > class A { > static function staticA() { > self::static2(); > } > static function static2() { > echo "A::static2\n"; > } > } > class B extends A { > static function static2() { > echo "B::static2\n"; > } > } > B::staticA(); ?>> > This has somewhat recently been highlighted by different developers to > be somewhat problematic behavior in creating user friendly APIs. If you > want to see a possible use for it you need look no further than the > example ZActiveRecord API that was used in their webcast with php|arch. > (http://blog.joshuaeichorn.com/archives/2006/01/09/zactiverecord-cant-work/) > Currently the code laid out there is impossible short of some ugly use of > debug_backtrace() and file parsing :/. This patch of course would allow that > kind of code too exist. > In a small example based on the one I gave earlier you could change the > code too the following and have it print "B::static2": > <?php > class A { > static function staticA() { > static::static2(); > } > static function static2() { > echo "A::static2\n"; > } > } > class B extends A { > static function static2() { > echo "B::static2\n"; > } > } > B::staticA(); ?>> > As far as current userland code impact, there is very little as far as I > can tell. No keywords have been added, just another use for an existing > one. No changes were made to self:: or parent:: so the change should be > pretty transparent. The only thing that I see remotely causing any > issues would be the new function (get_caller_class().) I added that just > to complete the set so to speak. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
