Uhm.. brain fart.
I was thinking $this->$foo was normal when I wrote this up, I would
change my last statement from the earlier email to any syntax which did
not include a $.
That being said then, I think I favor parent->foo the best.
One other possible alternative would be to treat parent "like a variable..."
$parent->foo
On 1/4/2013 5:09 AM, Clint Priest wrote:
Speaking of which, parent::foo ( with :: but no $) might work as well, almost
*any* character change could work...
parent:::$foo
parent:$foo
parent->$foo
parent->foo
parent.$foo
parent.foo
I favor having the $ in some solution though...
-Clint
On Jan 4, 2013, at 5:04 AM, Clint Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com> wrote:
Missed that bit... I think that would add two bits of inconsistency though...
(Without the $)
-Clint
On Jan 4, 2013, at 1:18 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
Hi!
A recent suggestion from Stas is to use parent->$foo (note the use of ->
rather than ::)
I actually proposed parent->foo. parent->$foo implies the name of the
variable is "$foo", not "foo" - just as in $this->$foo. Yes, I know it
does not match parent::$foo - but I can't do much about it. In any case,
better not to add another inconsistency to the list of existing ones.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
-Clint
