Re: Constructor semantics
| From: | Christian Weiske | Date: | Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:24:42 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Constructor semantics | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.gtk.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-gtk-dev+get-775@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi Andrei,
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc
The property-based constructors are meant only for simple values. A constructor such as GtkClist one will surely be overriden by a custom implementation. I thought *all* constructors would have it then. If not, it's not consistent, and I to my mind inconsistency should be avoided as far as possible.
If it's just nice-to-have, I am not sure I want to invest time it right now. I'll just go ahead and implement positional parameters first. Positional has priority, I think. People are used to it.
Right. Before we had warnings, but I think failure to create an object is serious enough. ACK.Regards/MfG, Christian Weiske -- XMMS is playing now:
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc