Re: Calling parent's constructor

Zeev Suraski wrote: > >Inherited constructors are already broken in Zend, and cannot > >be fixed any more. > > Christ. "Kris", with a K. And no, I did not choose that name. :-) > I *love* it when you state opinions as axioms. But let's > agree to disagree. Actually, we agree, at least on the "cannot be fixed" part. Unless you want to give constructors a fixed name, such as __init(). This would greatly simplify inheritance rules and the whole parent::-matter, but it would also break about all existing OO code. Using a fixed name, you do not need three rules to desribe how constructors work (currently we have: 1. constructors are named like their class, 2. constructors are never inherited functions, 3. derived classes without constructors call their superclass constructor, if there is one, in contradiction to rule 1, but for the greater benefit of the OO framework :-). Instead you just need a single rule (1. constructors are named __init(), they are inherited unless overwritten by the derived class). As an added benefit, in the "fixed constructor name" model, you'd not need __parent() at all, parent::__init() would easily suffice. I happen to think that the current constructor logic is broken, if you count unnecessary convolution as a bug (We had a single rule when we started, 1. constructors are named like their class). Adding features to it only makes it more ugly, like the two additional inheritance-of- constructors rules, and now the ::__parent() pseudo-function, which actually _is_ a fixed constructor name in disguise (it is just named __parent() instead of __init()). > > This looks sensible. I suggest parent::__parent(), > >though, to go along with __wakeup(), __sleep(), and __delegate(). > > At the risk of giving a few people heart attacks from surprise, I'll agree > with you here. That's the solution I thought about for this issue as well. Another approach to the problem (just in case you count agreeing with me as a bug, I'm going to offer another alternative that is harder for you to agree on with me :-) would be to change to fixed constructor names (1. constructors are called __init()), AND keep the variable constructor names logic for compatibility. That would fix the core of the problem without killing all the existing code. And it would bring beauty back to PHP OO. Kristian -- Kristian Köhntopp, NetUSE AG Siemenswall, D-24107 Kiel Tel: +49 431 386 436 00, Fax: +49 431 386 435 99 Using PHP3? See our web development library at http://phplib.netuse.de/