Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] interfaces

Hello Andi, as far as i can tell it works. At least all my code works as well as all the tests. If i remember correctly the outside reallocation was some kind of ptimization. But anyway it must be compatible becuase if we end up in implementing an interface that extends one or more interfaces we call zend_do_inherit_interfaces() which itself does reallocation. But it should be possible to drop the preallocation and initialization to zero. As soon as i figured that part out i can commit - i have one problem though in head, some valid interface code doesn't work there, so i first have to figure out what's wrong in head. best regards marcus Wednesday, June 7, 2006, 5:27:42 AM, you wrote: > Hi Marcus, > Looks like a good change to me. I think we can live with it not > catching that edge case (for which the developer should be shot > anyway :) especially as it does only keep the iface once so no biggy. > A couple of things re: the patch: > a) I see zend_do_implement_interface() is exported. Is the behavior > of this function changing in a BC incompatible way? I'm asking mainly > because of the new emalloc/erealloc in there which used to be > outside. Not sure if it actually affects BC though. > b) I prefer changing p_if_num and o_if_num to be more similar to our > naming conventions. p_if_num -> parent_iface_num, and o_if_num to > current_iface_num (OK not sure about current. Maybe you have a better one :) > Looks great! Thanks. > Andi > At 03:31 PM 6/6/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: >>Hello Andi, >> >> hello again on the same matters. I did another patch (against 5.2) >>which is a bit better. It drops multiple interfaces from the interface >>list so that reflection nolonger generates wrong output and maybe even >>prevents from other problems. >> >>Now what the patch does: >> >>1) (invalid) >>interface U {} >>class X implements U, U {} >> => error, before U was inherited twice >> >>2) (actually used in SPL) >>interface U {} >>class X implements U {} >>class Y extends X implements U {} >> => U is inherited only once, no error, before U was inherited twice >> >>3) (in theory wrong) >>interface U {} >>class X implements U {} >>class Y extends X implements U, U {} >> => U is inherited only once, no error, this is where the patch >> fails, well it is not pedantic, Aontony and myself checked >> it and it seems impossible to catch these without API change. >> >>4) (actually used in SPL) >>interface U {} >>interface V extends U {} >>interface W extends U {} >>class X implements V, W {} >>class Y implements U, V, W {} >> => both classes implement U only once, no error >> before U was inherited multiple times >> >>So besides that the patch is not pedantic but it fixes all issues. >>What do you guys think? >> >>best regards >>marcus >> >>Tuesday, June 6, 2006, 5:54:41 PM, you wrote: >> >> > That's what I thought. Thanks Stas for checking it out. >> > Antony, it's ok if you warn if there are two on the same line e.g. >> > implements foo, foo but if the interface is inherited we shouldn't >> > prevent that. >> >> > Andi >> >> > At 08:43 AM 6/6/2006, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> >>About interfaces and doble interfacing prohibition patch - Java >> allows this: >> >> >> >>class A implements Serializable { >> >>} >> >> >> >>class B extends A implements Serializable {