Re: Inconsistencies with constructors in SPL

I like that idea and I like that it works for userland classes as well. +1 Do you think it should throw a warning, notice, or -- as you both suggested -- just silently succeed? 2011/5/16 Johannes Schlüter <johannes@schlueters.de> > Hi, > > I|d actuallz suggest a different option: > > If a parent constructor is called but doesn't exist the engine should > ignore this. The same goes for destructors. > > This solution would also work for userland classes. > > johannes > > On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 14:14 -0400, Andrew Curioso wrote: > > So, I ran across bug #54631 > > > > A fatal error is thrown if you try to call parent::__construct() from a > > subclass > > of SplObjectStorage. > > > > I was going to close it as "expected behavior" since that is pretty > normal > > if the parent class doesn't implement __construct(). > > Also, the docs don't list it as having a __construct() method. > > > > But then look at SplDoublyLinkedList (and a bunch of others). They are > > documented > > as having a __construct() method, yet it triggers a fatal error when you > try > > to call > > "parent::__construct()" from a subclass' constructor . > > > > So it seems to me that there are two possible solutions: > > > > - Update the docs to remove ::__construct() for classes that don't have > one. > > - Make sure __construct() is implemented in all SPL classes * and update > the > > docs. > > > > * Even if it is empty. > > > > What's everyone thinking? > > > > I'd be more than happy to add the constructors to the code where needed, > I > > just > > want to make sure that it is the right move first. > > > > > > - Andrew > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >