At 01:06 AM 4/7/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
AG> Just in case I wasn't clear, interfaces *are* meant to be a contract
to the
AG> outside world and aren't supposed to be used for all sorts of internal
AG> hierarchy stuff.
AG> If they allow PPP modifiers today then that is a bug IMO.
Of course
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Interfaces should not support access modifiers and should by default be
> public.
+1
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/
Das Buch zu PHP 5: http://professionelle-softwareentwicklung-mit-php5.de/
--
PHP Interna
Hello Andi,
Friday, July 4, 2003, 1:53:48 AM, you wrote:
AG> At 01:51 AM 4/7/2003 +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>At 06:03 PM 3/7/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
>>>Hello internals,
>>>
>>>It is of course correct that an interface method cannot be declared private
>>>but i think it should be possib
At 01:51 AM 4/7/2003 +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 06:03 PM 3/7/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
Hello internals,
It is of course correct that an interface method cannot be declared private
but i think it should be possible to declare it protected.
Interfaces should not support access modifiers an
At 06:03 PM 3/7/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
Hello internals,
It is of course correct that an interface method cannot be declared private
but i think it should be possible to declare it protected.
Interfaces should not support access modifiers and should by default be public.
Andi
--
PHP Int
Hello Moriyoshi,
Thursday, July 3, 2003, 7:13:44 PM, you wrote:
MK> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Börger) wrote:
>> Nice idea, but one thing i wanted is to disable cloning of class objects.
>>
>> The following class makes cloning impossible for all derived classes:
>> class no_clone {
>> final pr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Börger) wrote:
> Nice idea, but one thing i wanted is to disable cloning of class objects.
>
> The following class makes cloning impossible for all derived classes:
> class no_clone {
> final private __clone() {}
> }
>
> but the all classes that should not be cloned m
Hello Moriyoshi,
Thursday, July 3, 2003, 6:50:46 PM, you wrote:
MK> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Börger) wrote:
>> Not really. An interface simply describes a protocol subset that must be part
>> of the implementing class's protocol. In that it makes no sense to allow final
>> or private methods in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Börger) wrote:
> Not really. An interface simply describes a protocol subset that must be part
> of the implementing class's protocol. In that it makes no sense to allow final
> or private methods in an interface but still a protected member in an interface
> would descri
Zitat von Moriyoshi Koizumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Börger) wrote:
>
> > Hello internals,
> >
> > It is of course correct that an interface method cannot be declared
> private
> > but i think it should be possible to declare it protected.
>
> I don't see the benefit to all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Börger) wrote:
> Hello internals,
>
> It is of course correct that an interface method cannot be declared private
> but i think it should be possible to declare it protected.
I don't see the benefit to allow interfaces to have protected methods as I
use abstracts for t
11 matches
Mail list logo
