2011/9/17 Etienne Kneuss <col...@php.net>: > > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 17:15, Laruence <larue...@php.net> wrote: >> >> Hi: >> this is really a big bc break...(fatal error) >> is there any reason for us to really change this? In Yaf, there >> are a lot of Abstract classes, the subclass only need declared there >> argument when they really need it. > > Well, that is wrong. if you declare an abstract method with a set of > arguments, classes implementing that method should be compatible with that > set of arguments. > >> >> and I really not think this change is good one, the Intenal class >> can not be saw by userland(sure, doc, reflection), so they only get >> the FATAL ERROR(you are wrong) but will never be told how should they >> to do.. > > Given that we have been quite flexible with this in the past, I don't > believe a E_FATAL is warranted here, might be better suited as a E_STRICT, > as there is no apparent reason why this would prevent the engine to > continue. > Hmm, E_STRICT is better, I support.
Thanks >> >> thanks >> >> 2011/9/17 Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com>: >> > 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 >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Laruence Xinchen Hui >> http://www.laruence.com/ >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> > > > > -- > Etienne Kneuss > http://www.colder.ch > -- Laruence Xinchen Hui http://www.laruence.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
