Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25143
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
DomainKey-Status: good
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=fdJalGT666Rr3oKRzsXVUUqyAttkkE8CbTwcKhnnzP6pf1ypRE9/CIY8HEDrG8aPO73DLAGXXt225GxYPPy3Dy+ZVGjg2DLGHEim52Qy3FNcuo32VibDfofltII5V57IuN+0suA4Fx7lE0H1jjUwZ1nx2zZdjj+UwJHY93s8yik=
Message-ID: <fe05d1540608021042u33d5a2f5n984e7c35667eea4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 19:42:48 +0200
To: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: "Zeev Suraski" <zeev@zend.com>, internals@lists.php.net, 
	"Christian Schneider" <cschneid@cschneid.com>
In-Reply-To: <44D0DB82.1070307@lerdorf.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <EB.71.29121.B6690C44@pb1.pair.com>
	 <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>
	 <44D0DB82.1070307@lerdorf.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre)

Hi,

On 8/2/06, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
> 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.

In this particular case, nobody says anything against Marcus or his
work but about this change and then about the general direction is
taking regarding strict OO.

We can disagree with him (or anyone else) without being told to stop
to attack him. We never did not, we only disagreed, is it still
possible to disagree?

I think this is the purpose of this list to discuss things, especially
when we disagree on a direction. It is a bit stupid to say that as
there is nothing to discuss if we all agree...

> In this particular case I think it should be possible to mark certain
> internal methods as strict and keep userspace methods loose.

I agree and this is what many people asked.

Cheers,
--Pierre