Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29823
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 66.249.92.175 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=MZbINmkceIb/FYeZCJCpdO7+dKtwavZLLFaxjApQtD8HQcnaUU1WUlepU5HKWSlrXl584B8cYW2gNzFQftqip8riebE0a4mE/T7FHHoXYkJ4YYRG/5A4LEp/nNCTQzro1CIDRrJiAgybxaQJ4HCvHGQg9FGQlwyxS2Z6qppHryc=
Message-ID: <c70e053d0705261907x1830ecd5r1cdf2bab352db2bd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 22:07:13 -0400
To: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <4658D0CB.9070901@digitalsandwich.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_82415_14490762.1180231633645"
References: <c70e053d0705261548v63c111a1qf9bfae78534b27da@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4658D0CB.9070901@digitalsandwich.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] late static binding
From: dohpaz@gmail.com ("Ken Stanley")

------=_Part_82415_14490762.1180231633645
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 5/26/07, Mike Lively <m@digitalsandwich.com> wrote:
>
> It appears that all you are suggesting that is different from what has
> been discussed previously is purely syntactical. In that regard I would
> have to say that while neither this:: or static:: are jaw-droppers,
> child:: seems somewhar counter-intuitive to me. From a purely semantical
> standpoint, parent:: and self:: work because there is only ever one. On
> the other hand it seems like it would be somewhat confusing to a
> developer not aware of the syntax to figure out what child:: would mean.
> A class could have 'n' number of children and while I realize that it is
> not really what the late static binding is about it still seems awkward.


Yes, I was asking purely for syntactical reasons, but you raise a very
interesting point that I did not take wholly into consideration. While my
example was meant for multiple children, I did not realize how much more
complicated that would become.

The term "late static binding" is slightly more rare than the
> functionality itself. There are a few other languages that implement
> similar concepts.
>
> I do know the ball was left firmly in my court on this issue last year
> and I also know that there has been continued interest from the php
> userbase about such a feature. If there is still support for it among
> the core developers I would be interested in taking up the issue again,
> reviewing and ensuring the most recent patch is still adequate as it
> relates to head, and determining the performance impact of the patch.


I hope the support is still there, and if you do release a patch for it, I
would be more than happy to help test it.

Thank you for your time in responding to my questions. You have definately
given me some food for thought. :)

-- 
It looked like something resembling white marble, which was
probably what it was: something resembling white marble.
                -- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

------=_Part_82415_14490762.1180231633645--