Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25164 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 27642 invoked by uid 1010); 3 Aug 2006 07:47:03 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 27627 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2006 07:47:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Aug 2006 07:47:03 -0000 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.94.239.5 jdi.jdi-ict.nl Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from ([82.94.239.5:41284] helo=jdi.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.3 r(11751M)) with ESMTP id 7D/2F-44390-5F9A1D44 for ; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:47:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.6/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k737kuMl032413; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:46:56 +0200 Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:46:43 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: derick@localhost To: Pierre cc: Rasmus Lerdorf , Zeev Suraski , internals@lists.php.net, Christian Schneider In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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> <44D0DB82.1070307@lerdorf.com> X-Face: "L'&?Ah3MYF@FB4hU'XhNhLB]222(Lbr2Y@F:GE[OO;"F5p>qtFBl|yVVA&D{A(g3[C}mG:199P+5C'v.M/u@Z\![0b:Mv.[l6[uWl' MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Pierre wrote: > Hello, > > On 8/3/06, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > In this particular case I think it should be possible to mark certain > > > internal > > > methods as strict and keep userspace methods loose. > > > > But I would like to see atleast an e_strict warning of signatures are > > violated to give atleast the options to be strict and get warnings for > > it. I am pretty sure Edin doesn't give a **** about e_strict warnings... > > so that will work fine. I think that Zeev suggested something like this. > > For what I understand (and agree), he meant the other way 'round. > Users who like strictness will have to use an extra keyword in the > declaration. Users who don't care will not have to change anything in > their (working) code. No, he said that with that strict keyword it would E_ERROR out, but without it it would simply throw an E_STRICT. Derick