Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:21678
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20060124225424.0491f4c8@zend.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:55:18 -0800
To: Lukas Smith <lsmith@php.net>
Cc: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>,internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <43D48EEB.1090808@php.net>
References: <1179437188.20060122193218@marcus-boerger.de>
	<7.0.0.16.2.20060122185859.02b91f38@zend.com>
	<43D48EEB.1090808@php.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static vs. non static
From: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans)

As you're using this in the context of the object, I don't think it's 
too confusing. I actually find the latter more confusing and think 
it's best to stick to what we have today.

Andi

At 12:08 AM 1/23/2006, Lukas Smith wrote:
>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