Hello Jochem,
Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 6:52:17 PM, you wrote:
> Christian Schneider wrote:
>> Jochem Maas wrote:
>>
>>> so I can only assume that the ability to declare ctor signatures have
>>> been left in because they do no harm regardless of whether it is
>>> 'correct'.
>>
>>
>> If I
Christian Schneider wrote:
Jochem Maas wrote:
so I can only assume that the ability to declare ctor signatures have
been left in because they do no harm regardless of whether it is
'correct'.
If I remember correctly then one reason to have constructor signatures
is for object factories: Yo
Christian Schneider wrote:
abstract static protected function __construct(CrazySettings $s,
CrazyView $v);
Static doesn't really make sense as interfaces as object instance related.
Well actually the constructor is implicitly a static function too. The
whole allowing/disallowing constru
Jochem Maas wrote:
so I can only assume that the ability to declare ctor signatures have
been left in because they do no harm regardless of whether it is
'correct'.
If I remember correctly then one reason to have constructor signatures
is for object factories: You specify that an object to be
Note: this post contains a 'complaint' but its not aimed
at any one in particular, especially not Rasmus as he doesn't give
the impression of being much of an OO proponent at heart, and because
he repeatly seems to err on the side of practicality and caution
(as opposed to correctness for correctn
Matthias Pigulla wrote:
Now that was a quick reply :)
Also known as runtime inheritance, or late binding. It's not a new
thing, we have it today. The discussion was about whether to
have a way
...
That is, one can write
if (...) class A extends X {} else class A extends Y {}
right now?
