I did as much as possible from the steps asked in the php bugs page, but
still I want to check with you folks before submitting a bug report.
I found a strange behavior in PHP 5.2.4. Try running the following code:
At the end of the script, the static var stores not the object but the
string re
Martin Alterisio wrote
> class Foo {
> static public $foo;
>
> function __toString() {
> self::$foo = $this;
> return 'foo';
> }
> }
>
> $foo = (string) new Foo();
> var_dump(Foo::$foo);
> ?>
Got even stranger result here:
string(3) "foo"
ALERT - canary mismatch on efr
Hi,
I can confirm that behaviour (older CVS build) and it seems that you can
get that thingy to segfault if you var_dump twice. That might be helpful
for investigating that "interesting" behaviour. Backtrace follows...
#0 0x0087a3b9 in zend_mm_check_ptr (heap=0xe20710,
ptr=0x7fffa5cd22c
>People generally prefer compile-time
>control which is derived from definition rather than per-instance
>runtime control (implementing interface vs. checking each time if class
>has certain methods).
It's me again, sorry.
So, if I understand you well, Stanislas, you are personally not much int
The 5.3 branch was just created in the CVS and is now open for
development. Please remember to MFH/MFB your patches to this branch
when making your commits.
Thanks,
Ilia Alshanetsky
Release Master
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.
Hello,
if I understand you correctly, you want to radically change the behavior of
self:: ?
This is not doable as it would break tons of scripts!
Regards
On 9/27/07, Baptiste Autin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >People generally prefer compile-time
> >control which is derived from definition r
Hello,
Thanks! I've that dynamic access of static members patch that is waiting to
be commited:
$foo::myFunc(); etc..
Here is the patch:
http://patches.colder.ch/Zend/dynamic_static_calls_5_3.patch?markup
Thanks in advance!
Regards
On 9/27/07, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Th
You mean, tons of PHP scripts?
It would just allow some non-working code (fatal error) to run, by extending
the scope of self::. So what could it break?
And if you add the obligation to implement an interface (probably under-used
in PHP), it is even less likely that it raises side effects.
No ?
-
The 5.3 branch was just created in the CVS and is now open for
development. Please remember to MFH/MFB your patches to this branch when
making your commits.
Maybe it would be a good idea to start 5.2.5 release cycle soon - so we
get rid of pending fixes and need to merge between 5.2 and 5.3?
So, if I understand you well, Stanislas, you are personally not much into
"static::" but more into making that sort of code working :
interface iC {
public $structure;
}
abstract class A implements iC {
public function display() {
echo self::$structure;
}
}
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 01:25 +0200, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thanks! I've that dynamic access of static members patch that is waiting to
> be commited:
> $foo::myFunc(); etc..
Done.
johannes
> Here is the patch:
> http://patches.colder.ch/Zend/dynamic_static_calls_5_3.patch?markup
Thanks everyone!
I've just submitted the report, adding the info you provided.
Regards,
Martin Alterisio
I don't think that 5.2.5 will be the last 5.2.X release before 5.3 is
released as much as I'd like that to be the case. So, the need to maintain
5.2.X branch will continue even post 5.2.5 release, but I don't disagree
with the idea of starting the process of 5.2.5 release in a week or so.
On 9/26/
OK, so its a bit of caching. So it sounds like it stores a pointer
into the symbol table, so that if $a is redefined it will still be
correct. What happens if the symbol table must be rehashed? Does it
still work, or does it look it up again?
I think rehashing doesn't matter since hash table has
I don't think that 5.2.5 will be the last 5.2.X release before 5.3 is
released as much as I'd like that to be the case. So, the need to
maintain 5.2.X branch will continue even post 5.2.5 release, but I don't
disagree with the idea of starting the process of 5.2.5 release in a
week or so.
Yes
Thanks.
On 9/26/07, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 01:25 +0200, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Thanks! I've that dynamic access of static members patch that is waiting
> to
> > be commited:
> > $foo::myFunc(); etc..
>
> Done.
>
> johannes
>
Hello,
static methods seem exactly like dynamic binded methods now, is there
any chance that "abstract static function" being restored from E_STRICT
limitation? Currently it is allowed in interfaces, but forbidden in abstract
class, I don't know why php implements "static method" in this way, t
17 matches
Mail list logo
