On 5/26/07, Mike Lively <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It appears that all you are suggesting that is different from what has
been discussed previously is purely syntactical. In that regard I would
have to say that while neither this:: or static:: are jaw-droppers,
child:: seems somewhar counter-intuitive to me. From a purely semantical
standpoint, parent:: and self:: work because there is only ever one. On
the other hand it seems like it would be somewhat confusing to a
developer not aware of the syntax to figure out what child:: would mean.
A class could have 'n' number of children and while I realize that it is
not really what the late static binding is about it still seems awkward.
Yes, I was asking purely for syntactical reasons, but you raise a very
interesting point that I did not take wholly into consideration. While my
example was meant for multiple children, I did not realize how much more
complicated that would become.
The term "late static binding" is slightly more rare than the
functionality itself. There are a few other languages that implement
similar concepts.
I do know the ball was left firmly in my court on this issue last year
and I also know that there has been continued interest from the php
userbase about such a feature. If there is still support for it among
the core developers I would be interested in taking up the issue again,
reviewing and ensuring the most recent patch is still adequate as it
relates to head, and determining the performance impact of the patch.
I hope the support is still there, and if you do release a patch for it, I
would be more than happy to help test it.
Thank you for your time in responding to my questions. You have definately
given me some food for thought. :)
--
It looked like something resembling white marble, which was
probably what it was: something resembling white marble.
-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"
