On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 23:37 -0700, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > $hair = new Hair();
> > $hair->colour = 'brown';
>
> You can do this without pre-defining any properties.
yes but the following (as I'm you certainly know):
echo $hair->colour
generates an E_NOTICE if the property isn't defin
$hair = new Hair();
$hair->colour = 'brown';
You can do this without pre-defining any properties.
The above is a much less wordy way of doing the following:
No, it is not the same. You can override what happens when you do
setColor - like send notification to some other object or set also
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Rob Richards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A little late to the party, but the windows build for PHP 5.2.6RC5 is
> finally available. Please test it as much as possible.
>
> http://pecl2.php.net/downloads/php-windows-builds/qa/php-5.2.6RC5-Win32.zip
It is especial
I'm +1 for this syntax
function int myfunction(int $param)
{
return $someint;
}
C/C++ like, easy to understand
And bad idea about making a return type "function" - looks very useless and
will not be used a lot. Work with objects with methods returning an object
of some kind, then you can d
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 01:22 -0400, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are not talking about data here. We are talking about
> properties.
> Data is assigned to a property which is akin to functionality
>
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:21 -0700, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > But then you need to check if it exists lest you raise an E_NOTICE
> > because it doesn't exist. Additionally, E_NOTICE is run-time, interface
> > checking is compile-time.
>
> I don't understand what you mean here. PHP can't check
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 00:27 -0400, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Robert Cummings
> >
> > Abstract classes and interfaces are not the same. They are
> > used for
> > f
But then you need to check if it exists lest you raise an E_NOTICE
because it doesn't exist. Additionally, E_NOTICE is run-time, interface
checking is compile-time.
I don't understand what you mean here. PHP can't check variable accesses
compile-time. In fact, in PHP "compile-time" doesn't mean
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:12 -0700, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > an interface with an interface property of x, then all implementations
> > using that interface would know that property x exists and could use it
>
> You can use property in PHP without declaring it previously.
But then you need t
an interface with an interface property of x, then all implementations
using that interface would know that property x exists and could use it
You can use property in PHP without declaring it previously.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 00:27 -0400, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Robert Cummings
>
> Abstract classes and interfaces are not the same. They are
> used for
> fundamentally different reasons. An interface is to enforce a
> contract
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 23:51 -0400, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > That should be a matter of choice for the developer. When you sa
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 23:51 -0400, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > That should be a matter of choice for the developer. When you say
> "but
> > when, down the road, some logic...", all I see is you waving your
> hands
>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 19:01 -0600, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Richard Quadling <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 2008/4/30 Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >
> > > > O
Sam Barrow wrote:
Well in summation I think this is something that should be implemented,
I don't see any arguments against implementing this atleast for arrays
and classes, like we already have for function parameters.
The only thing left would be to decide on the syntax
public array function
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 19:01 -0600, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Richard Quadling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > 2008/4/30 Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 20:04 +0200, John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp
> > >
> > > Ltd at Cisc
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Richard Quadling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 2008/4/30 Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 20:04 +0200, John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp
> >
> > Ltd at Cisco) wrote:
> > > I think there's been two responses to this query:
> >
2008/4/30 Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 20:04 +0200, John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp
>
> Ltd at Cisco) wrote:
> > I think there's been two responses to this query:
> >
> > 1. We can't have properties in interfaces because interfaces don't have
> > properti
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 20:04 +0200, John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp
Ltd at Cisco) wrote:
I think there's been two responses to this query:
1. We can't have properties in interfaces because interfaces don't have
properties. I would say this is tautological and doesn
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 20:04 +0200, John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp
Ltd at Cisco) wrote:
> I think there's been two responses to this query:
>
> 1. We can't have properties in interfaces because interfaces don't have
> properties. I would say this is tautological and doesn't add anything.
>
Please be gentle, I have very little experience developing on OS X. To
be honest, the whole dylib thing seems messy and confusing to me,
compared to the fairly straight-forward Linux style .so approach.
Expected behavior:
Able to configure and build on OS X with:
./configure --enable-embed
A
A little late to the party, but the windows build for PHP 5.2.6RC5 is
finally available. Please test it as much as possible.
http://pecl2.php.net/downloads/php-windows-builds/qa/php-5.2.6RC5-Win32.zip
http://pecl2.php.net/downloads/php-windows-builds/qa/php-debug-pack-5.2.6RC5-Win32.zip
The non
I think there's been two responses to this query:
1. We can't have properties in interfaces because interfaces don't have
properties. I would say this is tautological and doesn't add anything.
2. Why would you need to? Getters and setters work.
So I suppose to answer my question for myself, ther
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:28 AM, John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp Ltd
at Cisco) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nathan,
>
> By example:
>
> interface EggLayer
>
> {
>public $eggsLaid;
> }
>
> class Chicken implements EggLayer;
>
> Some would say (and maybe I would too) that you should have a
Hi!
But, when you add the possibility of getters and setters, a property
becomes an abstraction. It would make sense that an interface declares
Nothing prevents you from having getters and setters as part of the
interface :)
Properties in interfaces make no sense now, but if we ever get a
Hi!
I understand why Interfaces can't have bodies, but could you explain why
Interfaces can't have properties?
Interfaces are API descriptions. API is usually seen as composed of
functions. Some go even as far as recommending even classes don't have
public properties at all :)
In any case
Nathan,
By example:
interface EggLayer
{
public $eggsLaid;
}
class Chicken implements EggLayer;
Some would say (and maybe I would too) that you should have a
getEggsLaid() method, that's fair enough. But why not the above?
You say interfaces can't have properties because they requir
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:51 AM, John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp Ltd at
Cisco) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The article explicitly mentions OOP interfaces in a few languages.
my bad.
> But
> the article, or for that matter any formal definition of an interface
> isn't really what I asked
Hi!
Sam Barrow wrote:
I want to make two classes:
abstract class a {
abstract public function go($a);
}
final class b extends a {
abstract public function go(array $a);
}
LSP violation here: a accepts go("away") but b doesn't.
This will not work, I get an error that the two
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 18:00 +0200, David Zülke wrote:
> As I've pointed out,
>
> public array x()
>
> will become ambiguous once we introduce a type "function", which is
> not unlikely at this point
That's what I thought, that's why I said number 1 is the most likely.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
Hi!
Well in summation I think this is something that should be implemented,
I don't see any arguments against implementing this atleast for arrays
and classes, like we already have for function parameters.
I think we had plenty of arguments against it last time it was
discussed. You could se
As I've pointed out,
public array x()
will become ambiguous once we introduce a type "function", which is
not unlikely at this point
David
Am 29.04.2008 um 17:22 schrieb Sam Barrow:
Well in summation I think this is something that should be
implemented,
I don't see any arguments
The article explicitly mentions OOP interfaces in a few languages. But
the article, or for that matter any formal definition of an interface
isn't really what I asked about:
My question was simply: why can't interfaces have properties?
John.
From: Nathan Nobbe
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Sam Barrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mine uses less code to accomplish the same thing, doesn't introduce new
> tokens, and has an easier syntax.
Ok, sorry to have tried to get this feature in. I do think that going
down the way you choosed right now is the best
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 17:43 +0200, Stefan Walk wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 April 2008 15:34:07 Sam Barrow wrote:
>
> > This will not work, I get an error that the two must be compatible.
> > Wouldn't it be a good idea to allow any type hint for a parameter that
> > does not specify a type hint?
>
> Th
Mine uses less code to accomplish the same thing, doesn't introduce new
tokens, and has an easier syntax. I'm still working on it, but I can
give an update in a couple days. I just wanted to see what people
thought about the implementation aspect of it.
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 17:37 +0200, Pierre Jo
On Tuesday 29 April 2008 15:34:07 Sam Barrow wrote:
> This will not work, I get an error that the two must be compatible.
> Wouldn't it be a good idea to allow any type hint for a parameter that
> does not specify a type hint?
That would be a bad idea, because it violates a (in my opinion, the) c
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Sam Barrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well in summation I think this is something that should be implemented,
> I don't see any arguments against implementing this atleast for arrays
> and classes, like we already have for function parameters.
>
> The only t
Well in summation I think this is something that should be implemented,
I don't see any arguments against implementing this atleast for arrays
and classes, like we already have for function parameters.
The only thing left would be to decide on the syntax
public array function x() { // Probably t
On Apr 29, 2008, at 3:15 AM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp Ltd at Cisco) schrieb:
could you explain why Interfaces can't have properties
Because interfaces are implemented which makes no sense for
attributes.
Sebastian,
This is true for the data storage
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:28 AM, John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp Ltd at
Cisco) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think I must be missing something here, but this sounds a little
> tautological - "we can't do it because it doesn't make sense. This is
> because it doesn't make sense"
>
> Certain
Steph Fox:
> Hi Wietse,
>
> > This is a bug in PHP Makefiles. You can use the depend.php script
> > that ships with my taint-for-PHP code. http://wiki.php.net/rfc/taint.
> >
> > To apply (on *n*x systems):
>
> That's not very helpful for Richard's Windows-specific query :)
Excuse me for trying
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 09:34 -0400, Sam Barrow wrote:
> I want to make two classes:
>
> abstract class a {
> abstract public function go($a);
> }
> final class b extends a {
> abstract public function go(array $a);
> }
>
Sorry, function in class b should not be abstract.
> This will
I want to make two classes:
abstract class a {
abstract public function go($a);
}
final class b extends a {
abstract public function go(array $a);
}
This will not work, I get an error that the two must be compatible.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to allow any type hint for a paramet
I think I must be missing something here, but this sounds a little
tautological - "we can't do it because it doesn't make sense. This is
because it doesn't make sense"
Certainly most people (myself included) consider interfaces to be
methods only, but I can't find a reason why not, and a
search-
James Dempster schrieb:
you should use getters and setters which you can define in interface
BTW: An attribute with getter and setter is what I would call a
property.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277
It might be bad design, but design is down to the application developer
and not the people who define a language.
I'm not necessary asking for the feature, I just want to understand why
we can't do it.
John.
From: James Dempster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sen
I would start by saying it's bad design. you should use getters and setters
which you can define in you interface
--
/James
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM, John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp Ltd
at Cisco) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marcus,
>
> I understand why Interfaces can't have bodies,
John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp Ltd at Cisco) schrieb:
could you explain why Interfaces can't have properties
Because interfaces are implemented which makes no sense for attributes.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7
Marcus,
I understand why Interfaces can't have bodies, but could you explain why
Interfaces can't have properties?
Thanks,
John.
-Original Message-
From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 April 2008 10:46
To: Jeremy Privett
Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re:
Hello Jeremy,
interfaces cannot have properties, nor can they have method bodies - that
is the whole purpose of interfafces. We are thinking of adding traits which
would allow for both but would treat inheritance differently. Until we get
that you would need to provide an abstract interface to a
On 29.04.2008 07:02, Gregory Beaver wrote:
Hi,
Today while testing phar with phpMyAdmin, I was getting a really weird
error - one of the files was turning into a series of Z's, munging the
entire display. Thinking it was a phar issue, I instead tracked it down
to a major problem in an edge case
Hi Stas,
Should editing ANY source level file (.h, .c type files) result in a
make?
Theoretically, it should. But it's as good as makefile dependencies, of
course. I'm not sure PHP configure script generates dependencies for all
files...
I spent some time looking into this yesterday (Richa
Hi Wietse,
This is a bug in PHP Makefiles. You can use the depend.php script
that ships with my taint-for-PHP code. http://wiki.php.net/rfc/taint.
To apply (on *n*x systems):
That's not very helpful for Richard's Windows-specific query :)
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
54 matches
Mail list logo
