Lukas Kahwe Smith schrieb:
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.
I share this objection. Maybe a somewhat handier solution of my proposal
would be the option to leave out the method name, but I'm not quite sure
whether it is really readable:
class Talker {
use A, B, C, D {
B::smallTalk instead A, C, D; //to be read like: use B::smallTalk
// instead the implementations form A, C, D
}
}
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() {
}
}
Hm, personally, I would leave this out. The notion is that class
definitions will override trait methods in any case (even/especially if
traits methods are conflicting). So it would be fine to have this one
implicit. This would also avoid construction attempts like: A::bigTalk
instead self::bigTalk, A::bigTalk;
Kind Regards
Stefan
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
