On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Alexander Lisachenko
<lisachenko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2016-08-23 14:51 GMT+03:00 Christoph M. Becker <cmbecke...@gmx.de>:
>>
>> I suggest to deprecate all other types than NULL as first arg for static
>> methods, because passing an int, for instance, makes even less sense as
>> Rowan has already pointed out elsewhere in this thread.
>
>
>
> Alternative suggestion (vote for Julien's patch): use first argument as a
> string with LSB scope name, see my message from late 2013 year:
> http://markmail.org/message/ogeh33jedumgo5lx.
>
> I agree, that all other types don't make any sense. So my suggestion is
> following: for dynamic methods it should accept object or null. Null can
> mean that we want to unbind the method from the object and maybe call it
> like a closure? (just compare this with Closure::bindTo behaviour). For
> static methods this could be object (why not - it will be ignored), string
> (in this case it will be a scope name if we want to call parent method with
> preserving Late Static Binding) or just null (null will be equal to the
> string with object class name)
>
> Thoughts?
>
It makes no sense to change the scope of the method.
A method is not a closure.
A method is bound to a class , a closure is by default unbound. A
method cannot be unbound. A method cannot change from one class to
another.
This :
class A { public static function foo() { } }
class B extends A { public static function foo() { } }
$a = new reflectionMethod('A', 'foo');
$a->invoke('B');
would lead to the exact equivalent as this with my patch :
$b = new reflectionMethod('B', 'foo');
$b->invoke();
So I don't see why we should change and patch the code to support such
a strange use case ...
If you want to call B's foo , create a ReflectionMethod from B, not from A.
Julien
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
