Re: Cannot call constructor

Sure the default implementation would have to be identical to the behavior of not defining one. I believe the best way to solve these issues is by having an implicit base class. To some extent, that means BC breaks though. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi. >> >> I'm not an expert here, so just thinking out loud ... >> >> If a theoretical \PHP\baseclass can have empty >> __construct()/__destruct(), what about the other magic methods? >> >> OK, I suppose cascading some of the magic methods to a parent and having >> a null parent at the very very bottom of the heap sounds useful. But I'm >> not totally sure. >> >> Is there much/any need for a true base class that ALL classes will extend >> from, including those in extensions. >> > > it was discussed in the linked thread, personally I agree that those are > different both in intention and implementation, so shouldn't affected by > this change. > > ps: for example having an empty __sleep() or __wakeup implementation would > be entirely differrent that one would expect. > > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu > -- Etienne Kneuss http://www.colder.ch