Agree. The following constructs should use the same <name>:<name>::foo() get_<name>_calss()
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:04 AM > To: 'Mike Lively' > Cc: PHP-DEV > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Late Static Binding > > > > On Feb 23, 2006, at 5:06 PM, Mike Lively wrote: > > > I also added a new function get_caller_class() which > returns the name > > of > > the class that static:: would represent. > > I find get_caller_class() a bit confusing because it introduces new > terminology (caller). May I suggest adding: > > get_self_class() // corresponds to self > get_static_class() // corresponds to static > > This already exists: > get_parent_class() // corresponds to parent > > What should get_class() return inside of a static method? I frankly > don't care, because I would always use get_self_class() or > get_static_class() so that the meaning was explicit. > > Thanks for the patch, I'm excited about this one. Oh, using the key > word static doesn't bother me at all. > > Best Regards, > > Jeff > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
