Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25165 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 29018 invoked by uid 1010); 3 Aug 2006 07:48:50 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 29002 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2006 07:48:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Aug 2006 07:48:50 -0000 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.74.107.235 mail.zend.com Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from ([80.74.107.235:65349] helo=mail.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.3 r(11751M)) with ESMTP id 06/6F-44390-06AA1D44 for ; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:48:50 -0400 Received: (qmail 26901 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2006 07:47:42 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO zeev-notebook.zend.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Aug 2006 07:47:42 -0000 Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060803104541.0853b1e0@zend.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:48:38 +0300 To: Pierre Cc: "Derick Rethans" ,"Rasmus Lerdorf" , internals@lists.php.net,"Christian Schneider" In-Reply-To: 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) At 10:40 03/08/2006, 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. Actually no, what Derick said is what I meant. I think emitting an E_STRICT notice on violation of a signature is a very reasonable compromise between the loose and strict worlds. It's not scientifically proven, but I very much believe that there's very strong mapping between those who care about these signatures and those who have E_STRICT enabled. I don't see why we need to add any new modifiers, loose or strict. Zeev