Re: LSB forward_static_call()

Hello, you're the only one disagreeing here, in this thread everybody is in favor of that change except you, and your arguments are: 1) this difference is bad 2) no problem with functions For which I've (along with others) already argued that: 1.1) some difference is already felt by regular users (They actually believe that parent:: is a special construct that allows non-static calls), I'm not saying it's OK because they're wrong, but it won't be a shock to introduce a difference. 1.2) the difference is only relevant in some very limited cases 1.3) the ClassName:: alternative needs to be used on very very limited cases 2.1) functions shouldn't be here to solve language design problems, especially when half of the feature is implemented as a keyword. 2.2) It's not convenient at all (c.f. references) , has WTF factors (c.f. referencing unrelated class), confusing naming. So yeah, if you're really the only one against it, and nobody else speaks up to disagree, I guess it should be ok to commit it. Regards On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote: > Hi! > >> 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 (probably) outdated one done by Mike and have it committed if no new 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. > > I must be missing something in this "discussion" concept. So it goes like > this: "I will make a patch and commit" - "No, please don't, it is not > good!" > - argument, argument, tons of explanations why it's not good - "OK, no need > to argue, I will make patch and commit". Why bother? > -- > 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