Personally I don't need the strict OO checks for matching parameter
lists at all, but as long as they are E_STRICT (or the like) I have no
problem with them being done. Nevertheless I would like to relax them
just a tiny little bit for signature changes not having an impact of
object compatibilit
Marcus Boerger wrote:
> the short form is, use interfaces. And the long form is read the upgrade
> file and find out to use interfaces :-)
I don't understand how interfaces are connected to my proposal, please
explain.
Personally I don't need the strict OO checks for matching parameter
lists
Hello Christian,
the short form is, use interfaces. And the long form is read the upgrade
file and find out to use interfaces :-)
best regards
marcus
Wednesday, September 20, 2006, 12:11:27 PM, you wrote:
> In the discussion about parameter checking in 5.2 I proposed to relax
> the checks a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
+1
Given that static methods apply to the class and don't have much in the
way of inheritance rules, Christian's suggested behaviour makes a lot of
sense.
Jasper
Christian Schneider wrote:
> In the discussion about parameter checking in 5.2 I prop
