OO Parameter Checking

Marcus Boerger wrote: > you still cannot ignore basic inheritance or reuse rules. Protocols > have to be respected -> E_FATAL, fix your code. I have several comments (plus patches) to this: 1) The current checks are IMHO too strict regarding default values for parameters: An inheriting class can add default values to a parameter without breaking the protocol: class A { function foo($x) { ... } } class B extends A { function foo($x = 42) { ... } } should be allowed. Only if there are fewer parameters in B::foo or if B::foo has more *required* parameters than A::foo the protocol is broken. Otherwise every instance of B can be passed to something expecting A. The attached paramcheck_relaxed.patch.txt for HEAD changes this. 2) The current checks are IMHO too strict regarding static functions: Static functions are not part of an instance's protocol (they can not be passed around) and should be left out of the check the same way constructors are ignored. The use case for this is a factory method: class A { static function factory($size) { ... } } class B extends A { static function factory($size, $color) { ... } } The attached paramcheck_relaxed.patch.txt for HEAD changes this. 3) I guess more controversial is the change from E_STRICT to E_COMPILE_ERROR for PHP 6 regarding these checks. While you consider such OO code as broken I would highly appreciate it if you recognize that other people have other coding standards and/or old code to maintain. Adhering to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle is something strict OO coders want to do. And they are using E_STRICT anyway, so I see no reason to force everybody else to change their code, so it should be left a simple E_STRICT IMHO. The attached paramcheck_e_strict.patch for HEAD changes this back to the old behaviour. If paramcheck_relaxed.patch.txt gets accepted I'd volunteer to back-port it to 5.x as well. Regards, - Chris