Re: reference caller object

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Ford, Mike <M.Ford@leedsmet.ac.uk> wrote: > Well, that sounds like a pretty good definition of a "magic" constant, so maybe > __CALLER__ might be appropriate as well? It's not a constant, is it now? __FILE__, __LINE__, __CLASS__ etc. can be resolved at compile-time. The caller will only be known at run time. I, for one, am quite happy that it's fairly complicated and convoluted to get the caller of a method, since it could lead to some seriously incomprehensible code in the hands of someone who don't know what they are doing. Requiring the user to use the backtrace is a clear warning sign, and I think that's a good thing. -- troels On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Ford, Mike <M.Ford@leedsmet.ac.uk> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Quadling [mailto:rquadling@googlemail.com] >> Sent: 18 September 2009 10:43 > >> >> Considering we have func_get_args(), maybe func_get_caller() would >> be >> a nice fit. >> >> I don't like the idea of a constant (CALLER) which changes value as >> you move around the code. Quite obviously, it isn't constant! > > Well, that sounds like a pretty good definition of a "magic" constant, so maybe > __CALLER__ might be appropriate as well? > > Cheers! > > Mike >  -- > Mike Ford, > Electronic Information Developer, Libraries and Learning Innovation, > Leeds Metropolitan University, C507, Civic Quarter Campus, > Woodhouse Lane, LEEDS,  LS1 3HE,  United Kingdom > Email: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk > Tel: +44 113 812 4730 > > > > > > To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to > http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm >