Sorry, mis-click.
Quoting Josh Fuhs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If I'm not mistaken, Java does not allow calls to static methods via object
> instances. It simply doesn't make sense to couple the unecessary object
> instance
> into a method call in which it has absolutely no bearing.
>
> If the objec
If I'm not mistaken, Java does not allow calls to static methods via object
instances. It simply doesn't make sense to couple the unecessary object instance
into a method call in which it has absolutely no bearing.
If the object has nothing to do with the operation, then there's no point for it
to
Isn't this a contradiction?
On 21 Feb 2004, at 9:10 PM, Art Hundiak wrote:
static methods and
static class variables should be consistent. Currently, you cannot
access a
class variable via an object instance.
And for what it's worth, I see no reason why static methods cannot be
called
from ob
On Friday 20 February 2004 20:23, Herr Witten wrote:
> Well, calling a static method from an instance breaks down the logic.
> If it is static, then the instance has absolutely no bearing when
> calling it. Therefore, it logically makes sense to call only from the
> class name.
>
> Moreover, making
PHP 4 Bug Database summary - http://bugs.php.net
Num Status Summary (771 total including feature requests)
===[*Directory/Filesystem functions]
26863 Assigned fgets hangs on some urls
===[*General Issue
At 11:54 21/02/2004 +, Nuno Lopes wrote:
> Hello Nuno,
>
> The point is that we discussed this very long and came to the conclusion
> that all php5 oo extensions should follow studlyCaps convention in their
> method naming. Hence this will not be changed again.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Marcus
> Hello Nuno,
>
> The point is that we discussed this very long and came to the conclusion
> that all php5 oo extensions should follow studlyCaps convention in their
> method naming. Hence this will not be changed again.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Marcusmailto:[EMAIL PRO
Hello Nuno,
The point is that we discussed this very long and came to the conclusion
that all php5 oo extensions should follow studlyCaps convention in their
method naming. Hence this will not be changed again.
Saturday, February 21, 2004, 12:16:24 PM, you wrote:
> Hello all,
> I'm currently do
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Nuno Lopes wrote:
> I'm currently documenting the Tidy extension and I've noted that John has
> changed the API in PHP 5.
> He changed all is_xxx to isXxx. This makes Tidy 1 and 2 (PHP 4 and 5)
> complitely imcompatible.
>
> I don't see any advantages in changing the API. And
Hello all,
I'm currently documenting the Tidy extension and I've noted that John has
changed the API in PHP 5.
He changed all is_xxx to isXxx. This makes Tidy 1 and 2 (PHP 4 and 5)
complitely imcompatible.
I don't see any advantages in changing the API. And I prefer the is_xxx
form
Is it pos
10 matches
Mail list logo
