Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:21643
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <43D48EEB.1090808@php.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:08:11 +0100
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com>
Cc: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <1179437188.20060122193218@marcus-boerger.de> <7.0.0.16.2.20060122185859.02b91f38@zend.com>
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20060122185859.02b91f38@zend.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static vs. non static
From: lsmith@php.net (Lukas Smith)

Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Yes, this was by design. Via class it should be ::method() and via 
> object it should be ->method().
> Why do you think this is wrong? I think it actually makes a lot of sense 
> and don't see what we gain from allowing to call self->method(). If 
> there's a good reason, I'd be open to it though.

I just gave a course in PHP5 OOP and this syntax overlap with static 
calls that do not end up being static seems confusing.

If I get Marcus proposal properly he would then allow changing things from:

parent::method();

to

parent->method();

This would add a totally separate syntax, which would make it clear to 
users that this is in fact not a static call. It looks ugly, but I 
understand what he is aiming at.

regards,
Lukas