Re: Property Accessors 1.2 : parent::$foo Issue
| From: | Clint Priest | Date: | Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:28:01 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Property Accessors 1.2 : parent::$foo Issue | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-64524@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Uhm.. brain fart.
I was thinking $this->$foo was normal when I wrote this up, I would change my last statement from the earlier email to any syntax which did not include a $.
That being said then, I think I favor parent->foo the best.
One other possible alternative would be to treat parent "like a variable..."
$parent->foo
On 1/4/2013 5:09 AM, Clint Priest wrote:
Speaking of which, parent::foo ( with :: but no $) might work as well, almost *any* character change could work... parent:::$foo parent:$foo parent->$foo parent->foo parent.$foo parent.foo I favor having the $ in some solution though... -Clint On Jan 4, 2013, at 5:04 AM, Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote:-- -ClintMissed that bit... I think that would add two bits of inconsistency though... (Without the $) -Clint On Jan 4, 2013, at 1:18 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:Hi!-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.phpA recent suggestion from Stas is to use parent->$foo (note the use of -> rather than ::)I actually proposed parent->foo. parent->$foo implies the name of the variable is "$foo", not "foo" - just as in $this->$foo. Yes, I know it does not match parent::$foo - but I can't do much about it. In any case, better not to add another inconsistency to the list of existing ones. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227