Re: __clone() implementation

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote: > At 02:42 PM 2/2/2004 -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote: > >If you force the parameter to be name $that, what's the point of requiring > >it to be passed at all? Seems analogous to having all methods be required > >to pass $this as their first parameter. > > Because it's a good way of retrieving the to-be-cloned object (no behind > the scenes magic), and in my opinion, it's cleaner because everyone's clone > functions will look the same and it'll make it easier to understand them. > Why do you care so much if it's called $that or $foobar? > What is important is that the problems with clone are fixed (almost). And > you now have a consistent way of calling the parent clone method if you > choose to. I don't think George really objects to the name itself as much as he's wondering why it has to have a fixed name at all. Forcing an argument to have a specific name really seems inconsistent with everything else in the language. Following the same logic, we also should make __get() and __set() have fixed parameter names, but I don't see anyone arguing for that. -adam -- adam@trachtenberg.com author of o'reilly's php cookbook avoid the holiday rush, buy your copy today!