Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > On 19.11.2007, at 14:24, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote: > >> On 11/19/07, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On 19.11.2007, at 14:05, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/19/07, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think the point of Stas reply was to use self:: instead of >>>>> parent::. >>>> >>>> how would self help? that would mean calling this exact method, not >>>> the method of parent-class >>> >>> that way you could add the class name as a second parameter to the >>> parent method, without having to type it out in every call. Anyways, >>> I think the current situation is quite clear to me. then again, I >>> forgot if we also added new magic constants to go along with >>> __CLASS__ for this (aka __SELF__)? >> >> that's possible, but some more "magic" seems to be "natural" here. >> >> As I and several others proposed earlier the best option would be: >> >> parent::method() thinks it is the same class as a caller >> ClassName::method() thinks it is ClassName >> >> this would be the least-surprise situation > > actually i do not think this is obviously more intuitive than what we > currently have. also that would introduce BC issues. so i think adding > some new magic constants (if they are not yet added) would probably > solve the situation more or less, plus you have self:: if you need to > do something more complex. of course it adds some more method calls. > > regards, > Lukas >
There wouldn't be any BC issues, the same methods wind up getting called, the only thing affected here is the resolution of static:: which obviously isn't set in stone until 5.3 is out. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
