Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25189 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98591 invoked by uid 1010); 3 Aug 2006 14:35:24 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98575 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2006 14:35:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Aug 2006 14:35:24 -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 ([204.11.219.139:57038] helo=lerdorf.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.3 r(11751M)) with ESMTP id 52/62-44390-AA902D44 for ; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:35:23 -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 k73EZDWA032540; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 07:35:13 -0700 Message-ID: <44D209A1.6040909@lerdorf.com> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:35:13 -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> <44D1FAF0.5060906@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, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >> 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? > > I don't like new keywords either, but I don't see any alternative. I > also think that interfaces are what should be used. But it seems that > we are wrong, interfaces do not solve this issue, I'm still unsure > about the reasons though... Well, currently they don't because they don't care about method signatures, but they could be made to care. Are there reasons beyond that? -Rasmus