== Quote from Christian Schneider ([EMAIL PROTECTED])'s article
> IMHO PHP doesn't need to be perfect in an academic OO sense but needs to
> provide what the majority of users need.
Yes, I'm certainly too much "academic" OO oriented, that's the reason why I think all
the magic methods must be im
Stephane Drouard wrote:
For sure I can't answer to your question, but why would you only implement it
to construtors?
That's where I think it is most needed. The other magic methods are
already less important but if there is an agreement to this I could also
whip a patch together for those. I jus
Chris,
For sure I can't answer to your question, but why would you only implement it to
construtors?
My original request was that all classes inherit from a base class provided by PHP
(even if not explicitly written), and that this base class implements all magic
methods in the appropriate way
Any chance the patch at
http://cschneid.com/php/php5/undefined_constructor_call.patch
will be applied?
I find it a rather crucial patch for PHP5 but I'm happy to listen to
people telling me otherwise, as long as I get some reponse :-)
- Chris
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing Li
Marcus Boerger wrote:
I can very much understand the drive behind this whish. The patch consists
of two parts. The first part is generating an error message in case no
constructor is available. He uses E_NOTICE while i would prefer E_STRICT
Both E_NOTICE or E_STRICT are fine with me. Whatever peopl
In a message dated 1/25/2004 5:51:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Here's a little patch which changes "Can not call constructor" from
> E_ERROR to E_NOTICE and continues execution:
> http://cschneid.com/php/php5/undefined_constructor_call.patch
In that patch, don't forget
Hello Christian,
I can very much understand the drive behind this whish. The patch consists
of two parts. The first part is generating an error message in case no
constructor is available. He uses E_NOTICE while i would prefer E_STRICT
there. Then the second part is a bit strange. It looks like if
Stephane Drouard wrote:
Implementing a common base class with empty methods (or Chris' proposal, just do not
report error) does not impact performance (just don't call them), but allows people
having a different view on programming to do it.
Here's a little patch which changes "Can not call constru
Ah Timm,
you ol' hacker! Looks pretty good. You capture like 99% i think :-)
thanks for the nice cod
marcus
Saturday, January 24, 2004, 7:53:12 PM, you wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 16:13, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> [...]
>> Well you should always by no exception derive your exception classes fro
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 16:13, Marcus Boerger wrote:
[...]
> Well you should always by no exception derive your exception classes from
> the builtin exception class. Just because that class can do things you can
> never imlement in your scripts.
Care to elaborate? A userland implementation is attac
Hello Stephane,
Saturday, January 24, 2004, 4:20:33 PM, you wrote:
> == Quote from Timm Friebe ([EMAIL PROTECTED])'s article
>> It's basically the same with the built-in exception class. I can't have
>> my own (at least not with the sexy-most name "Exception"). Then, in my
>> (very personal) view
== Quote from Timm Friebe ([EMAIL PROTECTED])'s article
> It's basically the same with the built-in exception class. I can't have
> my own (at least not with the sexy-most name "Exception"). Then, in my
> (very personal) view I want it designed differently, and want to have it
> extend _my_ base cl
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 03:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So why must we all keep implementing it?
Well, because you'd probably not like it the way I'd like to see it (or
the other way around), someone else probably prefers PEAR's, Horde's,
$random_other_php_framework's solution, and so on.
Plus, a
So why must we all keep implementing it?
On 23 Jan 2004, at 4:21 PM, Timm Friebe wrote:
This can be done in userland and should take a more or less skilled
programmer 5 to 10 minutes.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 15:48, Stephane Drouard wrote:
[...]
> I think all classes should be derived from a common base class
> (stdClass or a new dedicated one), even if it's not explicitly
> written.
This can be done in userland and should take a more or less skilled
programmer 5 to 10 minutes.
Hello Stephane,
your right with comparing development time to computer performance (total
cost of ownership model). So feel free to remember me as soon as we start
developing php 5.1. Maybe we can add somthing that lets you call non present
magical methods (__construct/__destruct/__clone) even if
Marcus,
The idea behind this kind of request is to speed up development time. And the way a
language and its base classes are implemented could really help to reach this goal.
When you write "a change is a change", you're right. But the way you have written your
code could really reduce the ris
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Well you design a class tree/framework and should know what you have done.
If not use reflection.
So to be able to later add a constructor to a base class one would be
stuck with one of two options:
1) have __construct() in all classes from the start, even if it's empty.
Ugl
Hello Stephane,
Thursday, January 22, 2004, 3:48:19 PM, you wrote:
> PHP implements an "stdClass". I expected that:
> * this was the base class for all classes, even if they do not explicitly "extends
> stdClass",
nope, there is absolutely no reason for that
> * this class implemented all the
19 matches
Mail list logo
