maybe Richard referring to https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55085 ?
but those change only affects the abstract classes.
Tyrael
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 3:43 PM, 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
>
>
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
