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 Mike, right, but those are considerations one has to do with any member of an interface. best regards marcus Monday, March 6, 2006, 8:23:36 PM, you wrote: > I am guessing he is referring to the fact that it becomes increasingly > likely that you will have more interfaces declaring __construct. If any > two interfaces declare construct with a different signature then by > definition those two interfaces will be incompatible. > It just means that interface authors will have to put some more thought > into their design decisions now or they could end up with slightly more > unusable code. > On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 20:07 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote: >> 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 >> Best regards, Marcus