Re: [PEPr] Call for votes on RFC::Requiring E_STRICT Compatibilityfor New PEAR Packages
| From: | Lukas Kahwe Smith | Date: | Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:32:16 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [PEPr] Call for votes on RFC::Requiring E_STRICT Compatibilityfor New PEAR Packages | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-43896@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Scott Mattocks wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:Well in theory the base classes should be properly designed to preclude this. Also there is the option of simply using new method names. But I do agree that this can require a lot of planning and if the original class you are extending is in C, it becomes a lot harder to fix the issue at the source. regards, LukasIsnt this even fatal in PHP 5.2?I am not sure.Anyways why do C wrappers need to rewrite signatures?Because there is so much inheritance going on that by the time you get 5 levels down the original method doesn't make sense for the child class anymore. It's not so much the method has a different signature as it is an entirely new method all together with the same name as the old one. But as far as PHP is concerned, if it has the same name it should have the same signature.