Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:22976
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:15:37 +0200
Reply-To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
Message-ID: <749874265.20060426211537@marcus-boerger.de>
To: Jochem Maas <jochem@iamjochem.com>
Cc: bu@orbitel.bg, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <444E2108.8050203@iamjochem.com>
References: <444E0854.2000804@emini.dk> <200604251602.42837.bu@orbitel.bg> <444E2108.8050203@iamjochem.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static properties
From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger)

Hello Jochem,

Tuesday, April 25, 2006, 3:15:52 PM, you wrote:

> Petar Nedyalkov wrote:
>> On Tuesday 25 April 2006 14:30, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>> 
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I was wondering if someone could enlighten me why it is not possible to
>>>create on-the-fly static properties:
>>>
>>>php -r 'class foo{}; foo::$bar = 1;'
>>>Fatal error: Access to undeclared static property:  foo::$bar in Command
>>>line code on line 1
>> 
>> 
>> This totally breaks the capsulation in the OO paradigm, so I find it the right 
>> behaviour. Taking apart the fact that there's no compilation in PHP, it also 
>> prevents capsulation and making a member variable of an object available only 
>> after it's declaration in the class (except for stdClass) is correct for me. 
>> I see this as "You can't redefine the model at runtime".

> Rubys allows exactly that and I'm sure your not going to say that Ruby is not an OO
> language - Javascript likewise, in that it allows runtime definition/extension of
> the model (granted it's prototype based rather than class based).

Do not mix class based OO like PHP and prototype based OO like JavaScript.

> (anyone with the argument that PHP!=Ruby or PHP!=Javascript might consider that
> PHP!="the OO paradigm")

PHP simply supports its own set and view of OO.

> I don't think the Fatal Error mentioned above is, from a endusers' POV,
> what would be expected given the ability to define non-static properties on the fly...
> If I had to guess as to what kind of error was raised I would have put my money on
> E_STRICT - i.e. 'we don't recommend this way of doing things, but it doesn't hurt the
> engine per se'

> having said that I have never needed to define static properties on the fly, so it's
> all rather academic. :-)

>> 
>> 
>>>Was this not possible because of the engine implementation of the static
>>>properties?
>>>

It is just some decision that was taken that the newer OO stuff should be a
bit more strict.

Best regards,
 Marcus