Re: Re: aggergate vs MI

At 00:40 09.04.2002, Stig S. Bakken wrote:

But a class is not defined at runtime, it's only compiled into bytecode that, when executed, declares the class. That's what Zeev means when he says that the difference between compile-time and runtime is not that big.

What i meant with runtime was that aggregation allows to change the methods of an object.

IMHO there is room for both aggregate and MI. We have require and include, not just include? :-) - Stig On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 00:16, Marcus Börger wrote: Mybe it would make sence to have MI for compile time and aggregation for run time. So we can have good design with MI and prototyping and testing and quick hacks with aggregeation. But doing compile times work with run time methods? marcus At 23:58 08.04.2002, you wrote:

If MI can be emulated using aggregation, how hard would it be to add the syntax for MI to the language, but have it implement it using aggregation? Zeev Suraski wrote:

At 00:44 09/04/2002, brad lafountain wrote:

If aggregation is included then i see it is absoulty necessary to

include

MI too.

In my opinion, only one of them (at most) has room in PHP. Having

both is

messy. My personal preference is MI, which is why I prefer tagging aggregation as experimental. Zeev

-- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

-- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php