Re: base class

Marcus Boerger wrote:

Well you design a class tree/framework and should know what you have done. If not use reflection.

So to be able to later add a constructor to a base class one would be stuck with one of two options: 1) have __construct() in all classes from the start, even if it's empty. Ugly and stupid. Not even Java forces one to do that :-) 2) Use reflection in all extending classes to check if a constructor exists. Inacceptable, a joke at best.

A change is a change.

OO is about extending classes without having to touch users of the class if the interface remains the same. Arguing that adding a constructor changes the interface is silly, especially if it is a parameterless one.

That would slow down execution ***very*** much and makes absolutely no sense at all. If you want a base class for your classes do it. Fell free.

I don't buy that: The place where zend_error(E_ERROR, "Can not call constructor"); is done could easily just ignore the call. Maybe it could be turned into E_NOTICE or E_STRICT for people who want to be notified about such calls. I'll post a patch on the WE if noone else is doing it. - Chris