Re: maybe we could all?

Kyle Terry wrote:

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Eric Butera <eric.butera@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Nathan Rixham <nrixham@gmail.com> wrote:

and on the other side.. to open things up interface Object { } or abstract class Object { } or class Object { } nothing else for now: reason: to address the current and forseable lack of function(object $obj) in

php;

in addition to allow future scope for any common to all methods (or any implementation of this to have) i guess first is it a good idea to have any of the above and to address this, then next if so which?

That needs to be prefixed. Or maybe namespaces if you're targeting 5.3? It'd suck to have a lot of code using such a thing only to become a reserved word.

good point about a reserved word getting implemented and f'ing it all up maybe design to start with no language in mind then implement using both namespace and non namespace, 2 versions a 5.1 and a 5.3 or something?

I doubt we are going to use the word Object. haha.

alas though, what other word do you use to describe something that is nothing more than an Object? more thought - if it had no method or properies, just interface or abstract class "Object" then should it become a reservered word we simply remove it.. or in any implementation do a if(!class_exists('Object')) { //definition? } actually.. debating already.. maybe it's wrong to assume that if a superclass that all others inheritted was added to php that it'd be called "Object" [even though it is in most other langauges] would a theoretical test then be to create a test class, check via reflection if it has a parent, if it does grab the name and then damn..