Re: Traits expecting interfaces implicitly leads to expensive runtime checks

Hi Nathan: On 10 Dec 2010, at 17:49, Nathan Nobbe wrote: > Def not :D, however, I still think this paradigm is lacking. Don't you think it makes > more sense if I write a trait that expects a given interface or class to be able to specify said > interface/class in it's entirety with just a single identifier rather than listing out all the > methods? > > For example, I think this would be ugly > <?php > trait IteratorHelper{ > abstract public current(); > abstract public key(); > abstract public next(); > abstract public rewind(); > abstract public valid(); > } > ?> > > essentially you're redeclaring the entire interface in the trait, the same would be true > of the public interface of an expected class. i think it would be much more elegant to allow a > specification on the trait declaration itself, something like > > <?php > trait IteratorHelper expects Iterator { > ... > } > ?> :D That was exactly my thought when I was writing my first answer. My second thought was, damn, not another keyword... But since you also seem to see the need, we should give it a thought. Anyone else with an opinion on that? Best regards Stefan -- Stefan Marr Software Languages Lab Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr Phone: +32 2 629 2974 Fax: +32 2 629 3525