I guess what I'm really getting at is another access modifier:
private, protected, public...
And now adding something like trusted.
trusted function myMethod() callable trustedInterface {}
In a case like this, caller would always be available, but not always
type-checked.
Chris Trahey
Web Applications Developer
Database Administrator
College Station I.S.D.
On Sep 19, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Chris Trahey <ctra...@csisd.org> wrote:
Okay, that gets me thinking.
First of all, we still would need to decide if the language should
withhold a feature to "help" the users. It's really up to them how
they use this basic reference. You've brought up a good point, but
surely there are certain situations... Unless...
We can discuss a more drastic change in the language to accomodate
cleaner code that still has access to the caller:
Type hinting method signatures with additional keywords, such as:
public function myMethod($arg) callable trustedClass
trustedInterface {
// caller is instance of trustedClass or impliments trustedInterface
or we have Exception
}
Surely there would be a few ways to skin this cat, but it solves the
"friend class" relationship without if(instanceof)... which would be
pretty cool.
Chris Trahey
Web Applications Developer
Database Administrator
College Station I.S.D.
On Sep 19, 2009, at 9:04 AM, "Jared Williams" <jared.willia...@ntlworld.com
> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stan Vassilev [mailto:sv_for...@fmethod.com]
> > Sent: 19 September 2009 11:33
> > To: troels knak-nielsen; Ford, Mike
> > Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] reference caller object
> >
> > >I, for one, am quite happy that it's fairly complicated and
> > convoluted
> > >to get the caller of a method, since it could lead to some
> > seriously
> > >incomprehensible code in the hands of someone who don't know
> > what they
> > >are doing. Requiring the user to use the backtrace is a
> > clear warning
> > >sign, and I think that's a good thing.
> >
> >
> > What is the basis for all this. When someone says a feature
> > is "ugly" and it leading to "seriously incomprehensible
> > code", I'd really like this is explained and supported by
> > evidence somehow, than just thrown around without facts.
> >
> > Most OOP languages expose the caller in some fashion. You'll
> > be hard at work to see in which of them it led to masses of
> > convoluted code.
> >
>
> It is considered a code smell, using instanceof in conditionals.
>
> "ttp://c2.com/cgi/wiki?InstanceofInConditionals
>
> And should be refactored with...
>
> "ttp://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ReplaceConditionalWithPolymorphism
>
> Jared
>
