Re: Cannot call constructor
| From: | Etienne Kneuss | Date: | Fri, 24 May 2013 15:36:51 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Cannot call constructor | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-67496@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net> wrote:
>
>> Sure the default implementation would have to be identical to the
>> behavior of not defining one.
>>
>>
> agree
>
>
>> I believe the best way to solve these issues is by having an implicit
>> base class.
>>
>
> that would also solve the "I want to typehint objects" problem.
>
>
>> To some extent, that means BC breaks though.
>>
>>
> by BC break you mean the name of the implicit base class?
>
>
No, I was more referring to the fact that people might be relying on the
hierarchy to be bounded by their own classes, and checking for their roots
using i.e. class_parents/reflection.
If we introduce a class and force it as parent of every userland root
classes, you can always find existing code to break in non-trivial ways :)
It seems acceptable to me though, given the progress we would make with
this change.
> --
> Ferenc Kovács
> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
>
--
Etienne Kneuss