As you're using this in the context of the object, I don't think it's
too confusing. I actually find the latter more confusing and think
it's best to stick to what we have today.
Andi
At 12:08 AM 1/23/2006, Lukas Smith wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Yes, this was by design. Via class it should be
Thanks. Dmitry.
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:28 PM
> To: Andi Gutmans; Sebastian Bergmann
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static vs. non static
>
>
> Hello Andi, S
Hello Andi, Sebastian,
Monday, January 23, 2006, 9:25:29 AM, Sebastian wrote:
> Lukas Smith schrieb:
>> If I get Marcus proposal properly he would then allow changing things
>> from:
>> parent::method();
>>
>> to
>>
>> parent->method();
> If that is the case, then it would be consistent to a
rogramming languages.
Thanks. Dmitry.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 6:00 AM
> To: Marcus Boerger; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static vs. non static
>
>
> Yes, this was
Lukas Smith schrieb:
> If I get Marcus proposal properly he would then allow changing things
> from:
> parent::method();
>
> to
>
> parent->method();
If that is the case, then it would be consistent to allow
this->method()
this->attribute
parent->attribute
too, no? (Note that I am
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Yes, this was by design. Via class it should be ::method() and via
object it should be ->method().
Why do you think this is wrong? I think it actually makes a lot of sense
and don't see what we gain from allowing to call self->method(). If
there's a good reason, I'd be open
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 6:00 AM
> To: Marcus Boerger; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static vs. non static
>
>
> Yes, this was by design. Via class it should be ::method() and via
> object it should be ->method().
> Why do you think this is wrong?
Yes, this was by design. Via class it should be ::method() and via
object it should be ->method().
Why do you think this is wrong? I think it actually makes a lot of
sense and don't see what we gain from allowing to call
self->method(). If there's a good reason, I'd be open to it though.
And ple
Hello internals,
right now we allow 'class::method()' like syntax but not 'class->method()
like. If noone comes up with a valid reason why i am forced to call
a parents method using static syntax i'll commit the little required
change. We could even add an E_STRICT when the old syntax is used wher
