Re: LSB forward_static_call()
| From: | Etienne Kneuss | Date: | Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:04:29 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: LSB forward_static_call() | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-38596@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello,
With such example, using Users:: over parent:: actually makes sense as
your intent is to request something strictly related to Users, and
you're not expecting any inheritance.
Sure, introducing a difference is not a perfect solution, but the
general feeling is that it's the best at hand.
No need to argue over and over, I'll produce a patch based on the
(probably) outdated one done by Mike and have it committed if no new
strong feelings against it raises.
Regards,
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> in my ActiveRecord, table for DepartmentUsers would actually exist ;)
>
> Even worse. All the data is in the Users table, DepartmentUsers is just a
> functionality extension. So you'll be operating on wrong data.
>
>> I am just looking for consistency. I am expecting get_called_class()
>> to work as a static analog of get_class(this)
>
> Can we PLEASE stop using "consistency" to mean "do as I say"? What
> "consistency" is in changing way parent:: worked for years, making parent::
> and class:: work differently and disabling non-forwarding call? Consistency
> with what - with your wishes?
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
> stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
> (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
>
>
--
Etienne Kneuss
http://www.colder.ch
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from a religious conviction.
-- Pascal