Re: php5 oop question
| From: | Roman Neuhauser | Date: | Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:47:01 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: php5 oop question | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-252709@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
# lists@cmsws.com / 2007-04-11 23:44:16 -0700:
> Paul Scott wrote:
> >On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 23:22 -0700, Jim Lucas wrote:
> >
> >>Has anybody else seen this style of syntax?
> >>
>
> >>http://5ive.uwc.ac.za/index.php?module=blog&action=viewsingle&postid=init_8059_1163957717&userid=5729061010
> >
> >I don't think that its really useful for anything, except maybe creating
> >overly complex SQL queries.
> well, I guess the better question is, is why when I talk others about oop,
> they say that this style of syntax is OOP, and anything else is not.
*What* style of syntax? "Syntax" is grammar, a set of rules, the
"visible" part of a programming language, something you either follow or
you get a parse error. To which grammar are you referring?
> be it dot notation or the pointers (->) in php.
Having "primitive" types, including literals, behave like instances
of a class helps writing object-oriented code, because you don't have
to special case. It's not required, however. You can write o-o code
in today's PHP, it just won't be purely "objective".
> I heard it called messaging at one point in the past.
>
> the passing up of information in the tree.
Different people use different metaphors.
--
How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man. You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991