Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> On 26.02.2008, at 04:19, Gregory Beaver wrote:
>
>> My only objection is that this introduces two new keywords, trait and
>> instead. In addition, this can get very awkward if multiple traits
>> (more than 2) implement the same method name. I would prefer a simple
>> recycling of the "=" sign for both use cases (I'd also accept = for
>> override, "as" for alias).
>>
>> class Talker {
>> use A, B, C, D {
>> smallTalk = A::smallTalk; // this says that if B, C or D implement
>> smallTalk, it is ignored
>> talk = A::bigTalk;
>> }
>> }
>
> Well this is not just a different syntax, but an entirely different
> approach. In Stefan's proposal one had to explicitly handle every
> conflict manually. in your proposal you do not have to do this. As
> trait's specifically wanted to get away from automatic conflict
> resolution when things overlap, I think that Stefan's proposal makes
> more sense.
>
> BTW Stefan: Whats the syntax for when you want to override a trait
> method with one inside the class definition?
>
> I guess one would use "self::" like so:
>
> class Talker {
> use A, B {
> B::smallTalk instead A::smallTalk;
> self::bigTalk instead B::bigTalk, A::bigTalk;
> A::bigTalk as talk;
> }
>
> function smallTalk() {
> }
> }
>
> I also assume that we would mandate signature compatibility (which
> IMHO should only throw an E_STRICT and not a fatal like what we
> currently do for inheritance in PHP6)?
Hi,
OK, since none of my suggestions are acceptable, let me put it this way:
I am full -1 for traits if it introduces 2 new keywords. Find a
solution that does not, and I will change my vote.
Greg
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
