Re: 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

Hello l0t3k, there is nothing new here besides that fact that now you can also have a method with the name '__construct' in an interface. Nothing else changed. marcus Monday, March 6, 2006, 1:42:50 PM, you wrote: > 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 >>> >>> Best regards, Marcus