Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:16182
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
DomainKey-Status: good
DomainKey-Signature: q=dns; a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
	s=test; d=omniti.com;
	h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
	b=TwS3OPSgS7zgcB3i7fOKipRKvtZhtk/hXDQPQvedcRrZ5zBoQgdoosCdx4kcky/h
	wiTFYh3VsAzQNYbwtw23fatHGeUJnzhOCcDiVFK47goc9BSU/+XTfvbyAjtisZJp
Message-ID: <427FA67E.2020506@omniti.com>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 14:05:50 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derrell.Lipman@UnwiredUniverse.com
CC: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <is8k2su0.fsf@random.internal> <4qdcz84j.fsf@random.internal>
In-Reply-To: <4qdcz84j.fsf@random.internal>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: new overloading feature?
From: george@omniti.com (George Schlossnagle)

Derrell.Lipman@UnwiredUniverse.com wrote:

>Derrell.Lipman@UnwiredUniverse.com writes:
>
>Leonardo Pedretti <lpedretti@suserver.com> writes:
>
>  
>
>>I would like (for code cleanliness purposes) to make 'new' return a
>>reference to an already created object under certain circumstances without
>>using a factory, is it possible?
>>    
>>
>
>A number of months ago, I proposed a similar feature, implemented as
>overloading a __new() function.  At the time, it seemed I was the only one who
>wanted it, but your request is for a feature identical to my request.  Here's
>my previous message.  (The whole thread can be found under the subject "new
>overloading feature?" from 5 Nov 2004).  I'd love for this to be revisited now
>that there's someone else with a similar desire.
>  
>

I'm not an OO expert, but doesn't this break a fundamental semantic of 
OOP -- namely that new() returns a new object of the specified class.  
Isn't this the whole reason that the Singleton pattern exists?

George