Hi,
I think Richards intended other methods often used in combination with
__construct:
class A { public function init($a, $b) { } }
class B extends A { public function init($a) { } }
=> PHP Strict Standards: Declaration of B::init() should be compatible with
that of A::init()
The example with __construct() is valid (at least in 5.3).
Devis
On 17 September 2011 14:43, Nikita Popov <nikita....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Richard!
>
> Which change are you talking about? I just tried doing:
> <?php
> class A { public function __construct($a) { } }
> class B extends A { public function __construct($a, $b) { } }
> And it worked on 5.4 Beta 1 without errors.
>
> Nikita
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Richard Quadling <rquadl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > With the recent BC with regard the locking of the constructor's
> > signature for subclasses, what is the expected mechanism for allowing
> > a subclass to have additional parameters?
> >
> > You can always supply them and use func_get_args() / func_num_args() /
> > etc. to read them.
> >
> > It would seem that the limitation restricts the capabilities. I'm not
> > a purist. Software development is a compromise between purity and
> > getting the job done in an efficient and understandable manner.
> >
> > By allowing undocumented parameters to the constructor (due to the
> > enforced signature), this would seem to break things on a different
> > front (I can't docblock non defined parameters for examples).
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
