Re: Changes to constructor signature checks

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Ralph Schindler <ralph@ralphschindler.com> wrote: > Hey Pierre, > > My perspective and expectations are framed by all sorts of existing > literature as well as the discussions on this list.  It saddens me that you > did not address any of the points I've brought up.  And, I simply cannot > tell what basis you have for your interpretation and opinion. It seems more > like you're basing your interpretation on preference alone. Again, no, I do not base my opinion on personal preferences. I only do not buy too much from the 'let do it the PHP way' when it comes to OO, and yes I slightly move to the strict side. > The facts are this: > > 1) What we know and have been told is that PHP's signature checking is > governed by Liskov Substitution Principle.  There are many references to > this in the list. And for this exact case, it is correctly implemented as of now. > 2) "Abstract Constructors" do not exist in any other language, for all > intents and purposes, it's something we've invented: > > http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22abstract+constructor%22 > > That's fine, so now the question is, how does this thing we've invented play > in with our current implementation of a class based object model and how > does it meet developer preexisting expectations? A construct is a specialized method, that does not change a yota what abstract methods are. > Even you Pierre, once promoted "looseness" > http://news.php.net/php.internals/25089 (Pierre) Only the doom never changes their mind :-D > 4) We should meet everyone's existing expectations, Rasmus talks about this: We should meet consistency with standard behaviors and then it is easy to learn, for everyone. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org