Re: LSB forward_static_call()
| From: | Lars Strojny | Date: | Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:21:54 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: LSB forward_static_call() | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-38556@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi Stas,
Am Montag, den 23.06.2008, 09:57 -0700 schrieb Stanislav Malyshev:
[...]
> Why having parent:: at all then? You could always use the class name,
> right? But for some reason we do have parent:: - and that reason is
> that using explicit class name is not a good style in this context, it
> both obscures the intent and makes unnecessary dependencies in the
> code. Now imagine on top of that we have name:: and parent:: work
> differently, so you don't have choice but using name:: for certain
> things.
An wide-spreaded usage example for non-forwarding calls is? I would
estimate, that in 70% percent, it doesn't matter, what kind of call
strategy is choosen, 29% percent will be forwarding calls and only 1%
are non-forwarding.
cu, Lars
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil signature.asc
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil signature.asc