RE: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Late Static Binding
| From: | Dmitry Stogov | Date: | Thu, 02 Mar 2006 07:20:39 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Late Static Binding | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-22073@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:andi@zend.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:51 AM
> To: Dmitry Stogov; 'Marcus Boerger'; 'Mike Lively'
> Cc: 'PHP-DEV'
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Late Static Binding
>
>
> At 06:37 AM 3/1/2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> >1) I would very like to see some real example where "static" is
> >necessary?
>
> It's needed when you implement a convention based system where the
> name of the Class has a meaning. For example in an OORDBMS mapping
> system, the name of the class could be the table name.
>
> >2) "static" is really bad name. I suggest "caller", Marcus thought
> >about "class".
>
> Yeah static is very confusing and I think it's a bad idea.
>
> I'm trying to think what a non-confusing way would be. Some
> ideas would be:
> a) using "class" e.g. class::method()
> b) change behavior of self:: to always be "virtual" and have people
> use class_name::method()
>
> Any other ideas?
static::foo()
class::foo()
caller::foo()
owner::foo()
Thanks. Dmitry.
> I think we should solve this issue but let's
> brainstorm and find the right way, both syntax wise and
> implementation wise (without breaking opcode caches).
>
> Andi
>
>
>