Re: __getStatic

On 02.01.2009, at 15:20, Marcus Boerger wrote:

There are two things here. One is the __getStatic which I do not care for personally but which has the potential of requiring c level api changes. The other is 'static class' as in the patch provided by Lars. That looks pretty good to me and from what I can tell Lars addressed all of the issues raised by Stas (a lot were referring to __getStatic anyway). http://lars.schokokeks.org/php/static-classes-002.diff Since this one would imo bring a nice addition in regards to handling consts as a better choice than defines I'd like to see it in. Also only this one seems ready. The __getStatic() indeed seems much more complicated as outlined by Stas in detail.

Ok, I guess I totally missed the "static class" patch. @Lars: Could you open a new thread and start a discussion about that patch there?

In this light the dl() change by Marcus (AFAIK this was planned and done for 6.0 and not 5.3) and the windows PCRE change by Andi seem potential candidates for regressions, issues and maybe should have been discussed beforehand. Just using these two has an example since they are the two last commits I marked as potential issues.

Postponing changes that prevent SEGVs for the sake of versioning and that cannot easily be done later because they require c level api changes is a no go for me.

Well we for some reason scheduled the change for dl() PHP 6.0 ("enable dl() only when a SAPI layer registers it explicitly"). I do not remember why we did not schedule it for the next PHP release (maybe we just thought PH 6.0 would be the next release) or if we did not want to make this change in 5.x. I just noted it as a commit that probably should have been mentioned on the list before being committed. regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith mls@pooteeweet.org