Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20252
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:29:09 +0100
Message-ID: <00A2E2156BEE8446A81C8881AE117F192C1C4F@companyweb>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] PDM Meeting Notes
Thread-Index: AcXvpiwKzqITT5y0Tt6VQX/HN2C+BQAAEYmQ
To: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: "internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: AW: [PHP-DEV] PDM Meeting Notes
From: mp@webfactory.de ("Matthias Pigulla")

> I don't see why you can't specify that a class definition must have a=20
> constructor.  Obviously the constructor is not for the=20
> interface itself.

Ok, that is, having __construct in the interface asserts that everything
you get passed (as an implementation of the interface) has been
constructed by a constructor that has a certain signature? :--/ Of
course it also doesn't make sense to call __construct on the
implementation passed along.

Luckily this is nothing I'm forced to write in my code ;).

I only wanted to utter I have a Bad Feeling(TM) if you invest time and
effort to make stuff like this work if the result is something that
seems to make no sense [to me only?]. And once you allow it, be sure ppl
out there use & abuse it and will complain should you ever have to
remove it again.

..

I'm just trying to make up a scenario where the above might make sense -
it could be where you have something like a factory method. It has a
type hint on it's argument to make sure what gets passed in implements a
certain interface.

That interface defines the signature of __construct, so the method can
construct instances of the "thing" - only knowing that the instances
constructed will implement the interface (?), but not knowing their
implementation.=20

But how should it construct instances? new INameOfTheInterface()? And
besides that, problem is again that the "thing" passed in would have to
be something representing a class, and not an instance of the class
itself. You could always (gut feeling) re-design this to work "the usual
way" by passing in something representing a class and providing
behaviour to construct instances.

I hope Andi backs me :)

-mp.