On Monday 23 June 2008 3:21:54 pm Lars Strojny wrote: > Hi Stas, > > Am Montag, den 23.06.2008, 09:57 -0700 schrieb Stanislav Malyshev: > [...] > > > Why having parent:: at all then? You could always use the class name, > > right? But for some reason we do have parent:: - and that reason is > > that using explicit class name is not a good style in this context, it > > both obscures the intent and makes unnecessary dependencies in the > > code. Now imagine on top of that we have name:: and parent:: work > > differently, so you don't have choice but using name:: for certain > > things. > > An wide-spreaded usage example for non-forwarding calls is? I would > estimate, that in 70% percent, it doesn't matter, what kind of call > strategy is choosen, 29% percent will be forwarding calls and only 1% > are non-forwarding. > > cu, Lars
I implemented a task-specific ORM last fall where the lack of late static binding really bit me, resulting in the need to duplicate code. I'll see about sending it to the list tomorrow from work as a practice example we can kick around. :-) (At least I think it's an LSB issue; if it isn't, I'm sure I'll get flamed for being off topic. <g>) -- Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
