On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:59:40 +0200 (IST), Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Why would anyone need this? if __construct() contains php5-only
> syntax, it won't work anyway on php4.
I just image the case of a class with some optimizations
for php5, but with a fallback implementation of some of its
feature
Why would anyone need this? if __construct() contains php5-only syntax, it
won't work anyway on php4. If it contains something that works in php4 -
why do you need separate constructor? Anyway, since in no place besides
constructor you can not do such tricks - why constructors should be the
onl
OK done
At 09:21 AM 3/18/2004 +0100, Lorenzo Alberton wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:10:42 +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Well it doesn't really make sense to redefine a constructor. We
> added it on purpose. Do you want me to change it to E_STRICT?
if that is possible, yes, please.
The example below
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:10:42 +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Well it doesn't really make sense to redefine a constructor. We
> added it on purpose. Do you want me to change it to E_STRICT?
if that is possible, yes, please.
The example below should make it clear
why redefinig a constructor *could* ma
Well it doesn't really make sense to redefine a constructor. We added it on
purpose. Do you want me to change it to E_STRICT?
At 01:28 AM 3/18/2004 +0100, Lorenzo Alberton wrote:
Why has this one been committed?
http://cvs.php.net/diff.php/ZendEngine2/zend_compile.c?login=2&r1=1.551&r2=1.552
&ty
