In php5 this works even without an instanceof relationship.
(I'm running 5.1.2 and this test gets a "PASS" from run-tests.php.)
I know the following test case does not even remotely follow
good OO design principles, but it's hard to imagine us going
back to the drawing board with our app. Please don't break
the following in php6 just to teach me a lesson about OO design.
If there's a repository of "someone will complain about a BC
break if this changes" tests, please add the following:
--TEST--
test that $this survives in a semi-static call
--FILE--
<?php
class TheParent {
public $x = 3;
}
class UglyUncle {
function f() {
$this->x = 5;
}
}
class Child extends TheParent {
function f() {
UglyUncle::f();
}
}
$c = new Child();
var_dump($c->x);
$c->f();
var_dump($c->x);
?>
--EXPECT--
int(3)
int(5)
Thanks,
Todd
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 19:41 -0700, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I don't see why it has to be a fatal error. If there's an instanceof
> relationship we can keep $this. If not, we should not pass $this
> (which I believe we already do in PHP 5), in which case the author
> would have to pass $this if he wants to change public properties.
>
> Andi
>
> At 12:49 PM 5/15/2006, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> >Todd Ruth wrote:
> >>I don't see benefits of making semi-static fatal that make it
> >>worth keeping those of us with large apps that depend on semi-
> >>static from upgrading to php6.
> >
> >My sentiments exactly. OO purity/strictness do now work well with
> >PHP's main strength -- its dynamicity.
> >
> >Edin
> >
> >--
> >PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
--
Todd Ruth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
