RE: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 / zend_compile.c php-src/tests/classes ctor_in_interface_01.phpt
ctor_in_interface_02.phpt ctor_in_interface_03.phpt ctor_in_interface_04.phpt interface_construct.phpt

In-Reply-To: <001b01c640ef$c4689ef0$6e02a8c0@thinkpad> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0603060849140.10670@localhost> References: <001b01c640ef$c4689ef0$6e02a8c0@thinkpad> X-Face: "L'&?Ah3MYF@FB4hU'XhNhLB]222(Lbr2Y@F:GE[OO;"F5p>qtFBl|yVVA&D{A(g3[C}mG:199P+5C'v.M/u@Z\![0b:Mv.[l6[uWl' MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > Is it your answer to my "break label" patch? :( > > I didn't see final PDM's decision about constructor in interfaces. > And I didn't see any discussion about this, however may be I missed it. The PDM notes say: Issue: Currently it is not possible to define a __construct() signature in an interface. Discussion: We didn't see a reason why this shouldn't be allowed, but Andi seems to have a reason for it. Conclusions: 1. Zeev asks Andi why he doesn't want constructors in the interface. If there is no sound reason we add this possibility. Nothing like that happened... so I guess it's not important enough to Andi anymore? :) > The question about constructors in interfaces is not simple, and both points > of view make sense. > So I would like to see your and others arguments? At the PDM we didn't find *any* reasons why we *don't* allow it... so why not just allow it? Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org