Hello Andi,
Monday, March 22, 2004, 8:00:42 AM, you wrote:
> We use the last defined constructor. We fixed a problem in B4 where old
> style constructors didn't always work.
If so that's a bug. That's absolutley not understandable.
> Andi
> At 12:30 AM 3/22/2004 +, t wrote:
>>>class a
>>{
Yes it should. But I don't know if it's possible to change it at this point
(after the RC). It's probably worth it.
Andi
At 01:11 AM 3/22/2004 -0500, John Coggeshall wrote:
Not to start a big flame war here, but if the argument at the end of the
day was won for the "Let's use studlyCaps for all
We use the last defined constructor. We fixed a problem in B4 where old
style constructors didn't always work.
Andi
At 12:30 AM 3/22/2004 +, t wrote:
function a()
{
echo 'a()';
}
}
$a=new a;
?>
Outputs ... a() ... when I would expect ... __construct() ... is this a bug,
some sort of new (on
Not to start a big flame war here, but if the argument at the end of the
day was won for the "Let's use studlyCaps for all OO stuff internal in
PHP", shouldn't ext/mysqli conform to that? I changed tidy a while ago,
and was surprised to see MySQLi has not...
John
--
-=~=--=~=--=~=--=~=--=~=--=~=
The below code outputs ... a() ... when I would expect ... __construct() ...
is this a bug,
some sort of new (only seeing this occur since RC1) feature, or some option
I'm supposed to switch off ?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net
Outputs ... a() ... when I would expect ... __construct() ... is this a bug,
some sort of new (only seeing this occur since RC1) feature, or some option
I'm supposed to switch off ?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
