Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25166 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32050 invoked by uid 1010); 3 Aug 2006 07:56:08 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32035 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2006 07:56:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Aug 2006 07:56:08 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.79.190.163 r163.red.fastwebserver.de Received: from ([217.79.190.163:27567] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.3 r(11751M)) with ESMTP id EC/CF-44390-61CA1D44 for ; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:56:07 -0400 To: internals@lists.php.net,zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:55:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20060803095558.49c4e484@pierre-u64> In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060803104541.0853b1e0@zend.com> 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20060803104541.0853b1e0@zend.com> Reply-To: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Newsreader: Sylpheed-Claws 2.1.1 (GTK+ 2.8.18; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 217.79.190.163 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre) Hello, On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:48:38 +0300 zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) wrote: > 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. Yes and no. Yes because E_STRICT already contains some OO only warnings and no because there is many problems catched by E_STRICT that are not related to OO good/bad practices, but they are still important and should be fixed. That's again the same problem, like many other I do develop with the most verbose method to prevent any kind of technical troubles (now or later) with my applications. I do not consider this issue as a technical problem. But having such annoying E_STRICT warnings prevent me to use it. > I don't see why we need to add any new modifiers, loose or strict. I don't see why PHP has suddenly to enforce design rules either, but you know that. -- Pierre