Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 / zend_compile.c php-src/tests/classes ctor_in_interface_01.phpt ctor_in_interface_02.phpt
ctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt interface_construct.phpt

From: Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:42:50 +0000
Subject: Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 / zend_compile.c php-src/tests/classes ctor_in_interface_01.phpt ctor_in_interface_02.phpt
ctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt interface_construct.phpt
References: 1 2  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to internals+get-22137@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
This should cause much fun with classes implementing multiple interfaces.... ""Dmitry Stogov"" <dmitry@zend.com> wrote in message news:001e01c640f6$efcb7a20$6e02a8c0@thinkpad... > Well :) > > I don't say that the patch is wrong, the question itself is disputable. > > PHP doesn't allow multiple constructors, so if some class will implement > interface with constructor. > This calss (and all its subcalsses?) will not able to change constructor's > prototype > > Havent we mess with subclasses? > > Thanks. Dmitry. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:derick@php.net] >> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:52 AM >> To: Dmitry Stogov >> Cc: 'Marcus Boerger'; zend-engine-cvs@lists.php.net; Andi Gutmans >> Subject: RE: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 / >> zend_compile.c php-src/tests/classes >> ctor_in_interface_01.phpt ctor_in_interface_02.phpt >> ctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt >> interface_construct.phpt >> >> >> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote: >> >> > Is it your answer to my "break label" patch? :( >> > >> > I didn't see final PDM's decision about constructor in >> interfaces. And >> > I didn't see any discussion about this, however may be I missed it. >> >> The PDM notes say: >> >> Issue: Currently it is not possible to define a >> __construct() signature >> in an interface. >> >> Discussion: We didn't see a reason why this shouldn't >> be allowed, but >> Andi seems to have a reason for it. >> >> Conclusions: >> >> 1. Zeev asks Andi why he doesn't want constructors in the >> interface. If there is no sound reason we add this >> possibility. >> >> Nothing like that happened... so I guess it's not important enough to >> Andi anymore? :) >> >> > The question about constructors in interfaces is not >> simple, and both >> > points of view make sense. So I would like to see your and others >> > arguments? >> >> At the PDM we didn't find *any* reasons why we *don't* allow it... so >> why not just allow it? >> >> Derick >> >> -- >> Derick Rethans >> http://derickrethans.nl | >> http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org >> >>

« previous php.internals (#22137) next »