Re: Re: parent:: forwarding

5.2 didn't have static:: so it cannot be a BC break. Thanks. Dmitry. Derick Rethans wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > >> I took a look into the patch and I don't like it all. >> >> At first, I don't see any consistency there. >> Why parent:: does forwarding but self::, static:: and "class names" don't? >> >> At second, it's too complicated. >> >> I would propose more consistent (from my point of view) and simpler patch. >> >> Each call to static method of parent class (it doesn't mater if it was >> done using parent:: or something else) assumes forwarding of called context. > > That sounds like a massive BC break to me, as that's not what happens > now. > > regards, > Derick