Hello, On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 2:51 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > >> So, I really would like to revert that foward_static_call stuff and >> implement the parent:: patch instead, while it's still possible. >> >> thoughts? > > Didn't we discuss that already? Adding magic to parent:: is not a good > idea, it's very basic language construct and should work simple. LSB is > an advanced feature, which probably would be used deep inside library guts > and thus can use more elaborate syntax.
It seems natural to think of LSB as a language feature, and so it doesn't feel right to have it partly implemented as a keyword, and then fix the problematic part as function. We already see how call_user_func is painful to use (i.e. with methods that use references), that same burden will be put on forward_static_call. > On top of that, by making parent:: forward called class name, you remove > the possibility of doing non-forwarding call to the parent class. Why would that be no longer possible ? If you want to make a non-forwarding call to the parent class, you can use TheParentClassName::foo();. > > As for it being slow - how slow it is? Does it really so slow that it > makes real-life application that otherwise would be fast to be slow? Or > it's just "couple more CPU cycles" slow? I suspect the latter - and thus > I don't think speed optimizations belong there. It's about 85% slower than a direct call. Sure it's not that slow when measuring absolutely, but we're talking about a feature that will be typically used in frameworks and libraries, so the amount of calls may be quite big. > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ > (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- Etienne Kneuss http://www.colder.ch Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction. -- Pascal -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
