Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113592 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 85953 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2021 16:54:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2021 16:54:44 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A09180087 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:48:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-ej1-f50.google.com (mail-ej1-f50.google.com [209.85.218.50]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-f50.google.com with SMTP id c10so3679107ejx.9 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/pHeGQh5grQN7/pP5evJkYTKtk2dFsJ4dszKdtCgPZ8=; b=f9h9Qfmi3OP+O+cP5aASuK2e8mYTPmKNaDN8yLY6mzoWtq29lIXnRsYjqBjUIn2Nqw gdjo/O4ujVvTjUtbGLhSxDR875RiOlEL5t/R9HR7HRbe5w1nbtw+AqPr0fYDoFp9n76H LYbeDBrK8b11isko+lctVZq9QtJUqHulLtRZzuxpfkDBlMnmYj8v4NOXFUCbRtIleFLr l51Dxjq/edOD7f7VS6ZgEGlo7UrYPMYKfJqY4a45CQSlTTzd0K7xpFxklOk5b7uo234M jXtQKAWpKJPkMaeRrNvKQD/8B2rihk3eRsixh/DCFjz3JvdtjKJhK/WpATbe+9+sE2p8 j/dw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/pHeGQh5grQN7/pP5evJkYTKtk2dFsJ4dszKdtCgPZ8=; b=Ik+VmUihBejtQ+9BBBEI3vtJQDR6ovPYVpwS36XrGOgdmK97EdxBTv66XLBFqOms+2 T3K1uJu486fFpb700on/AfM0bUKzcy6PFs5hicG40ZI1MTEJVVmx3E9pPQkxfZe2muhy G+pM5oRtXalDwerM6n011fe/Op2u+47Kf7jBrWNUUn1OfwmQ3CtVBm2R6xAEpUAu6y7Z PLI3vfCUR9OMdKRM24p9hDc7rATn5Q5TQt38QCsEu8Krr4MEPbNWyxmy/a1N5H3cYS6J IUw8P4AK6k//fv4dFwJj7j7/cRA3kBMWCWhhjyIdBWP/wBrTVtrQN34J3TtqoK3lKtuQ D4ug== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533cHLmPkWz4mJc+CdPtUpyZETT1QGZ0zy6lFxzI761cqBGQS5uh Px0z+wQufHpbFIEd5xNieG3hOLPoqftimlxsdjxc0KaYSKnKzA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzKT8eFJIJHuRIQRPWJof4VBeWT7ieoISZ8pgeMezYAv/4e2HIr7KxmYFL47dRVJsU4zeMniICy578kOjMj1Qo= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:948d:: with SMTP id t13mr35176747ejx.402.1615999725459; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:48:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:48:29 +0200 Message-ID: To: Nikita Popov Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000097dbf305bdbe41b0" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Static variables in inherited methods From: drealecs@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu?=) --00000000000097dbf305bdbe41b0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 5:30 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 3:01 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > > > Hi internals, > > > > While looking into various issues related to static variable handling, > > I've become increasingly convinced that our handling of static variables > in > > inherited methods is outright buggy. However, it's also long-standing > > behavior, so I've put up an RFC: > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_variable_inheritance > > > > I have now created an implementation for this change, and updated the RFC > with some sample code for how one can preserve the old behavior, if it's > being used deliberately. I plan to move forward with voting soon. > Maybe it would be good to have links to some bug reports (that you mentioned) or a code snippet like this https://3v4l.org/J8Mme to clearly show that copying the static variable happens on inheritance point, with whatever that variable was at that point so it would be clear that the current behavior is undefined considering only B class, if it would be to ignore what happened to A in the meantime. Thanks, Alex --00000000000097dbf305bdbe41b0--