Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25183 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 68715 invoked by uid 1010); 3 Aug 2006 13:32:43 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 68700 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2006 13:32:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Aug 2006 13:32:43 -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 ([204.11.219.139:45108] helo=lerdorf.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.3 r(11751M)) with ESMTP id 07/0F-44390-9FAF1D44 for ; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:32:42 -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 k73DWWh5023335; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 06:32:34 -0700 Message-ID: <44D1FAF0.5060906@lerdorf.com> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:32:32 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Macintosh/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre CC: Derick Rethans , Zeev Suraski , 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> <44D0DB82.1070307@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: 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) 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. I'm not all that keen on a new keyword for this. How about using an interface to indicate strictness? Isn't this really what interfaces are all about? -Rasmus