Re: Re: How to build a real Trait thing without exclusion and renaming

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > On 26.02.2008, at 04:19, Gregory Beaver wrote: > >> My only objection is that this introduces two new keywords, trait and >> instead. In addition, this can get very awkward if multiple traits >> (more than 2) implement the same method name. I would prefer a simple >> recycling of the "=" sign for both use cases (I'd also accept = for >> override, "as" for alias). >> >> class Talker { >> use A, B, C, D { >> smallTalk = A::smallTalk; // this says that if B, C or D implement >> smallTalk, it is ignored >> talk = A::bigTalk; >> } >> } > > Well this is not just a different syntax, but an entirely different > approach. In Stefan's proposal one had to explicitly handle every > conflict manually. in your proposal you do not have to do this. As > trait's specifically wanted to get away from automatic conflict > resolution when things overlap, I think that Stefan's proposal makes > more sense. > > BTW Stefan: Whats the syntax for when you want to override a trait > method with one inside the class definition? > > I guess one would use "self::" like so: > > class Talker { > use A, B { > B::smallTalk instead A::smallTalk; > self::bigTalk instead B::bigTalk, A::bigTalk; > A::bigTalk as talk; > } > > function smallTalk() { > } > } > > I also assume that we would mandate signature compatibility (which > IMHO should only throw an E_STRICT and not a fatal like what we > currently do for inheritance in PHP6)? Hi, OK, since none of my suggestions are acceptable, let me put it this way: I am full -1 for traits if it introduces 2 new keywords. Find a solution that does not, and I will change my vote. Greg