Re: Using child classes/interfaces as desired type hints

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Nathan Nobbe <quickshiftin@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Probly rehashing an old conversation here, but I'm wondering why the > following isn't supported > > <?php > abstract class AbstractServer {} > class ConcreteServer extends AbstractServer {} > > abstract class AbstractClient { > abstract function doStuff(AbstractServer $o); > } > > class ConcreteClient extends AbstractClient { > function doStuff(ConcreteServer $o) {} > } > ?> > > This results in a fatal > Fatal error: Declaration of ConcreteClient::doStuff() must be compatible > with that of AbstractClient::doStuff() in > /Users/quickshiftin/gitRepos/timberline/php-api-v15-client/testOverride.php > on line 11 > > I was reading a few posts from way back when > > http://marc.info/?t=107774904800001&r=1&w=2 > > yet still find myself wondering. I think it can be said here that if > there's a contract defined by AbstractClient::doStuff, that same contract > is > honored by ConcreteClient::doStuff. I also think changing the language to > support this notion wouldn't raise BC issues for the most part (at all?) > since at the moment you're forced to move to the lowest common denominator > in the tree, in this case > > class ConcreteClient extends AbstractClient { > function doStuff(AbstractServer $o) {} > } > > your feedback appreciated, > > -nathan > It was discussed recently: http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=128220433328115&w=2 Tyrael