Am 14.04.2015 um 16:33 schrieb Dan Ackroyd: > Here is some feedback then: > > From the RFC: >> - Trigger for “magic” method call: First call to class, either first call to >> __construct(...) or first call to any public or protected static method or >> property of the class > > I don't think this doesn't cover all cases that it needs to. For > example calling unserialze on some data that results in a class that > has this static initializer should mean that it would be invoked? > Similarly ReflectionClass::newInstanceWithoutConstructor also creates > a class in a way that isn't covered in the RFC, but presumably should > be. >
Your correct I forgot this two scenarios of first calls to a class. Thanks for the hint! But in the new draft (v0.4) I'm preparing at the moment I'll try to formulate the trigger "first call" more common by comparing it to the same trigger for __autoload function. Then these two scenarios should be included as well. > From the RFC. >> the static class constructor should be able to throw a catchable Exception >> for user error handling, if it is not possible to initialize. The open issue >> for >> me is, what the behavior on recalling the static class constructor afterward >> is. >> There are two possible behaviors I do not know which one I really would >> prefer so far. > > You missed the third and in my opinion correct one; the static > initializer would only ever be called once. I think this is suggested behaviour 1, isn't it? "On recall of the static class constructor a fatal error is raised to ensure it is only called once..." >If the programmer catches > the exception and forces the program to continue, that is their own > problem. Adding complexity to a language to try to work around > programmers ignoring exceptions is not a good idea. > I agree to this point that ignoring an exception is a bad idea. I think the example-code is a bit confusing, because the empty catch-block gives the impression that the exception is ignored. But what is really meant by behaviour 2 is that the programmer has the opportunity to handle the exception not by exiting his programm, but by cleaning up the situation and afterwards retry the code which failed before. I will try to clearify this in one of the next draft versions. > I think the RFC needs to be clearer in the specification of the order > that static initialization is called in. e.g. class B extends class A. > Both A and B have static initialization blocks. When a user calls `new > B()` which static initialization block is called first? > While rewriting the draft for v0.4 I although noticed this gap inside specification and came to the conclusion that this is the third "first call" scenario I haved missed. Because inheritance by using keyword extends is already a first call to class A. > cheers > Dan > Thanks for really constructive feedback, that one really helps me for the next draft of rfc Regards -- DerOetzi -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
