Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25138 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98081 invoked by uid 1010); 2 Aug 2006 17:08:36 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98066 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2006 17:08:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Aug 2006 17:08:36 -0000 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 204.11.219.139 lerdorf.com Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from ([204.11.219.139:46338] helo=lerdorf.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.3 r(11751M)) with ESMTP id 4E/B5-45114-F8BD0D44 for ; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:06:25 -0400 Received: from [192.168.200.106] (c-24-6-5-134.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.6.5.134]) (authenticated bits=0) by lerdorf.com (8.13.7/8.13.7/Debian-1) with ESMTP id k72H69XO016353; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:06:10 -0700 Message-ID: <44D0DB82.1070307@lerdorf.com> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:06:10 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Macintosh/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zeev Suraski CC: pierre.php@gmail.com, internals@lists.php.net, Christian Schneider References: <18810497049.20060801234124@marcus-boerger.de> <44CFDB2B.1010907@cschneid.com> <20060802010156.5be0258c@pierre-u64> <44CFDF89.6010506@lerdorf.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060802153119.0c2193c0@zend.com> In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060802153119.0c2193c0@zend.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) Zeev Suraski wrote: > I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can be > described as 'loose OO programming', and we're replacing it (instead of > augmenting it) with strict OO programming. Sure, and I agree that we should find a comfortable middleground, I'd just like to see a little less criticism of Marcus and some more civilized discussion. As far as I am concerned, Marcus' approach of making the existing OOP design consistent with conventional OOP principles is an extremely valuable one and something I hope he will continue doing despite all the crap he takes for it. By going through this we see where we diverge and we can make deliberate decisions to loosen things up where it makes sense. In this particular case I think it should be possible to mark certain internal methods as strict and keep userspace methods loose. -Rasmus