Re: RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > Zeev Suraski wrote: > > I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can be > > described as 'loose OO programming', and we're replacing it (instead of > > augmenting it) with strict OO programming. > > Sure, and I agree that we should find a comfortable middleground, I'd just > like to see a little less criticism of Marcus and some more civilized > discussion. As far as I am concerned, Marcus' approach of making the existing > OOP design consistent with conventional OOP principles is an extremely > valuable one and something I hope he will continue doing despite all the crap > he takes for it. By going through this we see where we diverge and we can > make deliberate decisions to loosen things up where it makes sense. > > In this particular case I think it should be possible to mark certain internal > methods as strict and keep userspace methods loose. But I would like to see atleast an e_strict warning of signatures are violated to give atleast the options to be strict and get warnings for it. I am pretty sure Edin doesn't give a **** about e_strict warnings... so that will work fine. I think that Zeev suggested something like this. Derick