Hello Lukas,
you still cannot ignore basic inheritance or reuse rules. Protocols have
to be respected -> E_FATAL, fix your code.
marcus
Wednesday, February 27, 2008, 1:49:58 PM, you wrote:
> On 26.02.2008, at 04:19, Gregory Beaver wrote:
>> My only objection is that this introduces two new
"Stefan Marr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> class Talker {
> use A, B, C, D {
> B::smallTalk instead A, C, D; //to be read like: use B::smallTalk
> // instead the implementations form A, C, D
>}
> }
Excuse me for just raisin
Hi Gregory and others,
Traits rox! I will never use them cause I think in different way,
but for many people this will be a great feature.
Gregory, the comment you added here:
OK, since none of my suggestions are acceptable, let me put it this way:
Childish story! I want my toy!
I am fully +1
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> On 26.02.2008, at 04:19, Gregory Beaver wrote:
>
>> My only objection is that this introduces two new keywords, trait and
>> instead. In addition, this can get very awkward if multiple traits
>> (more than 2) implement the same method name. I would prefer a simple
>>
Hi,
I had a thought about recursion (and self referencing) inside trait defined
functions and the possible issues that might occur due to explicit/implicit
conflict resolution and or aliasing/renaming (i'm not completely
following what the status quo is regarding conflict resolution and/or
aliasi
Lukas Kahwe Smith schrieb:
class Talker {
use A, B, C, D {
smallTalk = A::smallTalk; // this says that if B, C or D implement
smallTalk, it is ignored
talk = A::bigTalk;
}
}
Well this is not just a different syntax, but an entirely different
approach. In Stefan's proposal one had to ex
On 26.02.2008, at 04:19, Gregory Beaver wrote:
My only objection is that this introduces two new keywords, trait and
instead. In addition, this can get very awkward if multiple traits
(more than 2) implement the same method name. I would prefer a simple
recycling of the "=" sign for both use
On 27/02/2008, Joshua Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> // now to the questions
> $talker = new Talker();
> echo $talker->talk(); // What does this echo? My assumption is 'B'.
> echo $talker->bigTalk(); // How about this?
> echo $talker->smallTalk(); // This should be 'b'.
Wouldn't tra
Hi Joshua,
Joshua Thompson schrieb:
trait A {
public function smallTalk() {
return 'a';
}
public function bigTalk() {
return strtoupper( $this->smallTalk() );
}
}
trait B {
public function smallTalk() {
return 'b';
}
public function bigTalk() {
return strtoupper( $t
Stefan Marr wrote:
//Example from the RFC with the cross-over conflict to be solved
trait A {
public function smallTalk() {
echo 'a';
}
public function bigTalk() {
echo 'A';
}
}
trait B {
public function smallTalk() {
echo 'b';
}
public function bigTalk() {
echo 'B
Stefan Marr wrote:
> To get rid of exclude and rename I would like to propose the following:
>
> //Example from the RFC with the cross-over conflict to be solved
> trait A {
> public function smallTalk() {
> echo 'a';
> }
> public function bigTalk() {
> echo 'A';
> }
> }
>
> tr
11 matches
Mail list logo
