Yeah I agree but I'm less concerned about the
naming at this point but how to implement it assuming we find a name.
Andi
At 04:18 PM 3/8/2006, David Zülke wrote:
I'd still say we make it "this". It's reasonable and consistent.
- David
Am 09.03.2006 um 01:13 schrieb Andi Gutmans:
This patch is a bit rough. I'll try and think if there's a more
elegant way.
Andi
At 01:06 PM 3/8/2006, Mike Lively wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 17:37 +0300, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> 1) I would very like to see some real example where "static" is
necessary?
>
> 2) "static" is really bad name. I suggest "caller", Marcus
thought about
> "class".
>
> 3) I COMPLETELY DISAGREE TO ADD RUNTIME DATA INTO
> zend_function/zend_op_array.
> We can try to store "caller_scope" in execute_data.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
Rewrote the patch to use execute_data to store caller_scope. I
have not
renamed any functions or keywords (still using static::) as I did not
see any consensus on that yet.
Please review the implementation of caller_scope and I can take
care of
the naming issues when names are decided on.
patch attached and also available at
http://test.ft11.net/_mlively/late-static-binding.patch
It would be nice if the patch in PAT could be changed to reference
this
new version if the appropriate people have time.
--
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
