Re: Inconsistencies when accessing protected members

Hi all, thanks for thinking about this. On 26/03/2008, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote: > On 26/03/2008, Alexey Zakhlestin <indeyets@gmail.com> wrote: > > > use case for "protected" is similiar, but relates to cases when you > > have hierarchy of classes, which still have some common functionality, > > which might be usable for multi-instance operations > > Thanks. This is the exact way we see this. Anything that violates this rule > is a bug. Ok, good. So to get back to the original question (http://turl.ca/kfanjo), in the following case, should B1::f() be visible from B2 in the code example below? Note that: - B1 and B2 both extend A. B2 is neither an ancestor nor a descendant of B1, but I suppose they could be considered to be part of the same class hierarchy because they are siblings. - f() is declared as protected in A and B1, but not declared at all in B2. - The docs state: "Protected limits access to inherited and parent classes (and to the class that defines the item)" - http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.visibility.php . Currently, B1::f() is visible from B2. --> If this is a bug, Felipe's patch (http://ecl.mediain.com.br/diff/protected.diff) fixes the issue. Let's commit it! :) --> If this is not a bug then the docs need to be clarified. Furthermore, callbacks, is_callable(), lookups to the clone & destruct magic methods and possibly property access should all be changed, because they currently do not adhere to this rule (as illustrated in the code snippets in http://turl.ca/kfanjo ). The code: <?php class A { static protected function f() {return 'In A::f';} } class B1 extends A { static protected function f() {return 'In B1::f';} } class B2 extends A { static public function test() {echo B1::f();} // Currently, this works. } B2::test(); ?> Regards, Robin.