Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:23669 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 3821 invoked by uid 1010); 25 May 2006 22:08:59 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 3806 invoked from network); 25 May 2006 22:08:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 May 2006 22:08:59 -0000 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: jasper@album.co.nz X-Host-Fingerprint: 210.55.31.88 mail.album.co.nz Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from ([210.55.31.88:50228] helo=mail.album.co.nz) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id 65/9C-17316-8FA26744 for ; Thu, 25 May 2006 18:08:57 -0400 Received: from mail.album.co.nz (www.album.co.nz [127.0.0.1]) by mail.album.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC84710A50B; Fri, 26 May 2006 10:08:50 +1200 (NZST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1-gr0 (2006-03-10) on www.album.co.nz X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.1-gr0 Received: from [192.168.0.9] (222-154-124-141.jetstream.xtra.co.nz [222.154.124.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.album.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE015486; Fri, 26 May 2006 10:08:50 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <44762AEE.4000206@album.co.nz> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:08:46 +1200 Organization: Album Limited User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Edin Kadribasic CC: Christian Schneider , internals@lists.php.net References: <138663365.20060514205903@marcus-boerger.de> <038d01c676f8$ab9b3380$6602a8c0@foxbox> <44685D24.2000801@php.net> <1147708994.14148.23.camel@notebook.local> <16710545416.20060515202714@marcus-boerger.de> <1147721541.14148.47.camel@notebook.local> <4468DB43.1020005@emini.dk> <7.0.1.0.2.20060515194051.02b32ef8@zend.com> <1148496966.19173.79.camel@notebook.local> <454303585.20060524213714@marcus-boerger.de> <44759A3A.9050106@album.co.nz> <4475F224.9030508@emini.dk> In-Reply-To: <4475F224.9030508@emini.dk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] fatal static call in php 6.0? From: jasper@album.co.nz (Jasper Bryant-Greene) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Edin Kadribasic wrote: > Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote: >> Christian Schneider wrote: >> >>> PS: There are no plans to make non-static calls to static methods >>> illegal, right? >> >> What is the point in that? What advantage do you get using >> $this->someMethodName() [non-static call] over self::someMethodName() >> [static call]? > > You don't need to create an object to make a static call. > MyClass::MyFunc() works without objects, which is much faster than > creating an instance and then invoking a method on it. Exactly. You just gave an advantage of calling a static method using a static call over a non-static call. Now back to my original question, which actually relates to the OP's question: what advantage do you get calling a static method using a non-static call over a static call? - -- Jasper Bryant-Greene General Manager Album Limited http://www.album.co.nz/ 0800 4 ALBUM jasper@album.co.nz 021 708 334 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEdiruFfAeHhDzT4gRAwrJAKDvomdAlns/khNuwFDMMKcZXuT9DACgme9b /S4/8LUgYSL/Nsex8akNFaY= =ykGX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----