I can agree with "class", but it cannot be reused in other places:
owner::foo()
get_owner_class()
__OWNER_CLASS__
Thanks. Dmitry.
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 10:52 PM
> To: Jeff Moore
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; L
Yep. I was thinking mainly of methods not of static variables. I
still think this:: is the best way (better than class::)
At 12:12 PM 3/2/2006, Jeff Moore wrote:
On Mar 2, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Do you expect significant BC breakage?
Hello Andi,
Here is an example where ch
On Mar 2, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Do you expect significant BC breakage?
Hello Andi,
Here is an example where changing self to late binding would change
behavior:
class A {
static $a = "hello world";
static function getA() {
return self::$a;
Hello Jeff,
Thursday, March 2, 2006, 8:21:08 PM, you wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Mike Lively wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>> In regards to naming: 'static' wasn't my first choice either. In fact I
>> was originally using 'this::' due to me misreading the notes from the
>> PDM.
> Does 'this' wor
Hello David,
to me it was excellent in the first place, too. But when i started
thinking about it and wrote some lines of coude i came to the result
that the code is no longer understandable.
marcus
Thursday, March 2, 2006, 8:17:22 PM, you wrote:
> this:: would be excellent, since $this also
Hello,
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 14:21 -0500, Jeff Moore wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Mike Lively wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> > In regards to naming: 'static' wasn't my first choice either. In fact I
> > was originally using 'this::' due to me misreading the notes from the
> > PDM.
>
> Does 't
Do you expect significant BC breakage?
At 07:27 AM 3/2/2006, Lukas Smith wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jeff Moore wrote:
Unfortunately, the problem with making self late binding is that that there
are potential BC breaks. Is that possibility on the table?
I don't think we
On Mar 2, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Mike Lively wrote:
Hi Mike,
In regards to naming: 'static' wasn't my first choice either. In fact I
was originally using 'this::' due to me misreading the notes from the
PDM.
Does 'this' work ok? I like that one. this:: and $this would both be
late binding one
this:: would be excellent, since $this also references the actual
class that's calling, not the one that declares. Very good idea!
+1
- David
Am 02.03.2006 um 20:14 schrieb Andi Gutmans:
What about this:: ? Too confusing?
At 08:33 AM 3/2/2006, Mike Lively wrote:
Hallo,
Firstly thanks fo
What about this:: ? Too confusing?
At 08:33 AM 3/2/2006, Mike Lively wrote:
Hallo,
Firstly thanks for the comments. In regards to storing caller_scope in
op_array: the arguments against this make perfect sense. I am still
figuring out all of the nuances of the zend engine...so, equate it to
rook
Zeev Suraski wrote:
I misread the post, I thought we were talking about ob_end_clean().
Yes, ob_clean() may cause this problem to happen, but again, the right
approach would be having an 'applicative' output buffer on top of the
gzip output buffer. We can look into letting output handlers den
On 3/2/06, Andrei Zmievski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We already have json extension that will be bundled with PHP. Do we
need a userspace version as well?
Somehow I doubt it will make it into PHP4, so yes, we'll need PHP4
compatible way
That's the idea behind the libraries. Omar Kilani and I
On 3/2/06, Hannes Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/2/06, Andrei Zmievski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We already have json extension that will be bundled with PHP. Do we
> > need a userspace version as well?
>
> Somehow I doubt it will make it into PHP4, so yes, we'll need PHP4
> compa
On 3/2/06, Andrei Zmievski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We already have json extension that will be bundled with PHP. Do we
> need a userspace version as well?
Somehow I doubt it will make it into PHP4, so yes, we'll need PHP4
compatible way
- Hannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Ma
We already have json extension that will be bundled with PHP. Do we
need a userspace version as well?
On Mar 1, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
My PEAR proposal
(http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=198) was accepted,
and I'd like to get it into CVS please.
--
PHP In
Hallo,
Firstly thanks for the comments. In regards to storing caller_scope in
op_array: the arguments against this make perfect sense. I am still
figuring out all of the nuances of the zend engine...so, equate it to
rookie mistake :P.
I've tried rewriting the patch to use zend_execute_data to sto
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jeff Moore wrote:
Unfortunately, the problem with making self late binding is that that there
are potential BC breaks. Is that possibility on the table?
I don't think we should break any BC over this.
Neither do I.
regards,
Lukas
--
PHP Internals
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jeff Moore wrote:
> Unfortunately, the problem with making self late binding is that that there
> are potential BC breaks. Is that possibility on the table?
I don't think we should break any BC over this.
Derick
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To un
On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Yeah static is very confusing and I think it's a bad idea.
I'm trying to think what a non-confusing way would be. Some ideas
would be:
a) using "class" e.g. class::method()
b) change behavior of self:: to always be "virtual" and have people
us
final::foo();
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:51 AM
To: Dmitry Stogov; 'Marcus Boerger'; 'Mike Lively'
Cc: 'PHP-DEV'
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Late Static Binding
At 06:37 AM 3/1/2006, Dm
20 matches
Mail list logo
