Re: LSB forward_static_call()

On 6/20/08, Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net> wrote: > To sum up key points about each possibilities: > > 1) forward_static_call > + no need to affect the engine > - slow, painful > > 2) parent:: carries the info while ParentClassName:: doesn't > + convenient > + no functionnality lost > - introduces a difference between parent:: and classname::, but > restricted to LSB so no BC break > > It really seems like (2) is the most PHP way of doing things, while > (1) is more of a hack that we will regret later. > The only problem about (2) is that difference, but I really feel (and > experienced in the multiple help channels that I'm in) that people > already see (wrongly for now) classname:: and parent:: as slightly > different. So introducing it as of 5_3 wouldn't be too much of a > shock. The point is that: people who uses LSB will be aware of that > difference and will use parent:: vs classname:: carefully, while > others will be able to ignore it > > So, I really would like to revert that foward_static_call stuff and > implement the parent:: patch instead, while it's still possible. > > thoughts? I am all for it. that would be "intuitive" way of doing things, like I already stated before -- Alexey Zakhlestin http://blog.milkfarmsoft.com/