Den 2016-01-08 kl. 02:24, skrev Ben Scholzen 'DASPRiD':
By the way, Rasmus updated the RFC quite a bit, you guys may want to
take a look at it again.
On 26.09.2015 12:23, Dominic Grostate wrote:
An alternative that rfc might be to add a modifier to ctor, something
like.
required public funct
Hi Ben and Rasmus,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Ben Scholzen 'DASPRiD'
wrote:
> By the way, Rasmus updated the RFC quite a bit, you guys may want to take
> a look at it again.
>
>
I just have a couple questions about the rfc, but overall I think its great
and I really hope it makes it into PH
By the way, Rasmus updated the RFC quite a bit, you guys may want to
take a look at it again.
On 26.09.2015 12:23, Dominic Grostate wrote:
An alternative that rfc might be to add a modifier to ctor, something like.
required public function __construct();
A required function cannot be final, b
An alternative that rfc might be to add a modifier to ctor, something like.
required public function __construct();
A required function cannot be final, because the intention is to allow it
to be overridden, but it must be called by the child impl at some point.
What do u think?
On 26 Sep 2015 8:
Hi!
> Since there is no reason not to call parent ctor, maybe PHP should
> somehow make every class have default empty ctor, if it doesn't have
> one defined already - so you can write automatically
> parent::__construct() everywhere?
I completely agree with you, that's why I submitted
https://wi
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I'm thinking primarily of the benefit to base or abstract classes. For
>
> Both can have constructors.
>
>> base classes which expect certain properties be set, they are exposed to
>> the danger of remaining unset if the deriv
Hi!
> I'm thinking primarily of the benefit to base or abstract classes. For
Both can have constructors.
> base classes which expect certain properties be set, they are exposed to
> the danger of remaining unset if the derived class overrides the
> constructor without calling the parent.
You s
I'm thinking primarily of the benefit to base or abstract classes. For
base classes which expect certain properties be set, they are exposed to
the danger of remaining unset if the derived class overrides the
constructor without calling the parent.
This solution is analogous to:
class Foo
{
Hi!
> ability to set default values of properties to instances of objects or
> calls to static methods or functions (expressions in general).
That is what constructors are for. I.e. I can understand initializing
static properties (though it gives a lot of potential for weird race
conditions) but
Hi,
I see what you mean with static properties, that would be more difficult.
I can answer on non-static however.
* When will $p2 be initialized, which properties can it access?
- On class instantiation. It won't have access to $this, because the
object won't have been created yet. It will hav
Hi,
Would be good to split complete different subjects to different threads
anyways:
On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 15:53 +0100, Dominic Grostate wrote:
> the
> ability to set default values of properties to instances of objects or
> calls to static methods or functions (expressions in general).
This cau
Hey Dominic
On 23.09.2015 16:53, Dominic Grostate wrote:
A couple of things that would really help me in PHP are generics and the
ability to set default values of properties to instances of objects or
calls to static methods or functions (expressions in general).
I don't know if either of these
12 matches
Mail list logo
