Re: __getStatic

I am pretty sure that it's most common (and weirdest) use will be to have some kind of custom superglobals that will piss a lot of people off. Easier registry patterns etc. registry::$name = 'test'; echo registry::$name; Sounds stupid but since custom superglobals have been denied it's the next best thing ;) G. On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Hannes Magnusson < hannes.magnusson@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 15:06, David Zülke <david.zuelke@bitextender.com> > wrote: > > Am 22.08.2008 um 14:08 schrieb George Antoniadis: > > > >> I thought this had allready been denied, or am I wrong? > >> Also can new features still be implemented for 5.3? Isn't that closed? > >> > >> Don't get me wrong, I SO want this feature! :P > > > > The mail below explicitly states that both release managers have given > their > > okay for implementing any missing __magicStatic() methods... read the > mail > > again! > > Well... I actually thought this was rejected too until Marcus came out > of the blue and then Lukas giving the RMs blessing.. > > I can't find a single usecase for this, and see absolutely no point > with it and hardly consider this "making this [__call/__get/__isset > magic] complete". However, I could not care less of it gets in or not. > > -Hannes >