Hi,
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
Trait a {
function f() {}
}
Trait b {
function f() {}
}
class c {
uses a, b;
function f() {}
}
Reflection(c):
function "\0a\0f" function a::f
function "\0b\0f" function b::f
function "f" function f
All nicely callable using array syntax:
class d extends c {
function t() {
call_user_func(array($this, "a::f")):
call_user_func(array($this, "b::f")):
call_user_func(array($this, "f")):
}
}
$o = new c:
$o->test();
May be I don't get the point completly, but having this, every thing
what traits are trying to solve is lost... IMHO
Instead, you are playing with the devil (C++ multiple-inheritance).
The main part of the trait idea is to be able to solve conflicts
explicitly. Think this is the major contribution of traits and the
things being discussed here right now are not THIS kind of traits anymore.
Your other mail from today goes in the same direction. I don't feel
comfortable with this :(
I will put together some thoughts on how we could build real traits
semantics with the intended benefits you might be a bit more comfortable
with.
But I absolutely think the proposals from the last days are going in the
wrong direction. Instead of abusing the traits idea for this, it would
be a valuable contribution to make a cut and drop the traits ideas for
the sake of simplicity and use some mixin mechanism instead.
I'll try to have a better "real trait thing" ready in this evening.
Kind Regards
Stefan
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
